PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 


AGAINST 

The  Rev.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 


# 

ARGUMENT 


OF  THE 


REV.  JOSEPHJ.  LAM  PE,  D.D., 


A  Member  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 


\ 


. 


n 


< 

/  y 


PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 


AGAINST 


The  Rev. CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.D. 

% 


ARGUMENT 


OF  THE 


y 

REV.  JOSEPH  J.  LAMPE,  D.D., 

•  •* 


[A  Member  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 


.  ■  '• 


< 


■' 


' 


I 

: 


' 

!  •  ; 


r  9  y 

■  /•  ,  ;  ■  —  ■■■;  .  •  ■  ■ :  f  >  ■  •!,  . 


•  •  ■'H  : 


:  *■  •  .1.1  <  ■  •'!  M  :  m  .-}  ■  • 

y  ■  j 

j<  ;•  f  .  '  ••• 

;  '  ■  1  ■ 1 ' ; ' 

. 

,  ,  .  .  '  :  ■; 

.  C  0  ’  •  ' 

•'  )l  >'  <•'  '■ 

t  ■fJiiih; m.qf'ji  y-'O'y  * 

V  . 

— 


INTRODUCTION. 


Mr.  Moderator  and  Brethren: 

We  all  feel  the  pressure  of  Christian  work  and  the  responsi¬ 
bility  of  caring  for  the  spiritual  interests  of  the  Church  and  of 
seeking  the  salvation  of  immortal  souls  so  keenly,  that  we  can¬ 
not  fail  to  regard  a  trial  for  heresy  as  a  great  evil,  an  evil  so 
great  as  to  amount  well-nigh  to  a  calamity. 

We  all  deeply  deplore  the  state  of  things  which  confronts  us. 

But,  however  great  the  evil,  and  much  to  be  deplored,  trials 
for  heresy  may  become  a  necessity.  As  in  the  family,  so 
also  in  the  Church,  discipline  may  not  only  be  necessary,  but 
become  the  supreme  duty  of  the  hour;  and  it  would  surely  be 
greatly  to  the  discredit  of  the  Church  if,  when  that  hour  has 
come,  it  should  have  neither  the  grace  nor  the  courage  to  be 
equal  to  the  responsibility. 

The  inception  of  this  trial  was  not  left  to  the  decision  of  any 
one  individual.  After  a  calm  and  prayerful  investigation,  the 
Presbytery  itself  decided  that  the  emergency  had  arisen  for  the 
commencement  of  judicial  process. 

The  Presbytery  of  New  York,  in  view  of  the  widespread 
disturbance  which  Dr.  Briggs’s  utterances  were  creating  in 
the  Church,  was  obliged  to  do  something  to  vindicate  its  own 
good  name,  and  to  prove  its  fidelity.  Under  such  circum¬ 
stances  it  is  more  than  ever  our  solemn  duty  to  examine  all 
matters  coming  before  us  with  the  utmost  thoroughness,  can¬ 
dor  and  impartiality. 

In  a  case  like  this,  impartial  examination  is  difficult.  It  is 
characteristic  of  our  times  to  claim  the  utmost  freedom  of  ut¬ 
terance  and  belief.  Every  one  of  us  demands  the  largest  lib- 


4 


erty  as  man’s  natural  birthright,  and  denounces  intolerance  as 
one  of  the  greatest  evils. 

But  lovers  of  truth  have  ever  thought  it  a  privilege  to  sac¬ 
rifice  their  liberty  for  her  preservation,  and  intolerance  itself, 
in  defence  of  truth,  has  become  a  virtue.  It  was  in  the  defence 
of  truth  that  an  Apostle  of  Christ,  with  rare  courage,  declared: 
“,If  any  man  preach  any  other  Gospel  unto  you  than  that  ye 
have  received,  let  him  be  accursed.”* 

It  is  one  of  the  glories  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  that,  on 
the  one  hand,  she  has  rendered  grand  service  in  securing  for 
the  individual  man  his  liberty,  and  that,  on  the  other,  she  has 
been  intolerant  of  everything  believed  by  her  to  be  contrary 
to  the  truth  of  God;  and  it  is  precisely  this  supreme  loyalty 
to  the  truth  which  has  enabled  her  to  render  such  splendid 
services  to  the  cause  of  freedom. 

All  relations,  both  human  and  divine,  require,  for  their  very 
existence,  an  abridgment  of  individual  liberty.  This  is  true 
alike  of  the  family,  the  State  and  all  other  social  organizations. 
It  would  be  very  easy  to  press  the  point  of  liberty  so  far  as 
to  render  the  existence  of  these  institutions  impossible;  but  all 
agree  that  liberty  shall  be  exercised  only  within  the  bounds  of 
necessary  laws  and  regulations.  If  one  who,  in  politics,  holds 
to  the  principle  of  protection,  should  join  a  society  organized 
for  the  purpose  of  promulgating  the  doctrine  of  free  trade,  and 
should  then  begin  to  use  his  position  and  influence  in  the  so¬ 
ciety  to  circulate  the  principles  of  protection,  he  would  have  no 
right  to  complain  that  his  liberty  was  unjustly  interfered  with 
if  he  should  find  vigor  enough  in  that  society  to  place  him 
quite  outside  of  it.  A  natural  sense  of  justice  would  lead  every 
one  to  say,  That  is  right. 

Every  particular  Church  must  have  conceded  to  it  the  ele¬ 
mentary  right  of  organized  existence.  This  involves  the  fur¬ 
ther  right  of  formulating  articles  of  faith,  expressive  of  her 
conception  of  biblical  truth,  and  indicative  of  what  the  basis 
of  her  teaching  shall  be.  And  simple  justice  requires  that 


*  Gal.  i.  9. 


5 


those  who  receive  ordination  at  her  hand  on  that  basis  should 
stand  honestly  on  it  with  her.  A  subscription  of  loyalty  to  the 
Bible  and  our  standards  necessitates  an  abridgment  of  indi¬ 
vidual  liberty  to  that  extent. 

Neither  God  noi  man  compels  any  one  to  join  his  fortunes 
with  an>  particular  Church  and  creed ;  neither  God  nor  man 
compels  any  one  to  maintain  such  union  any  longer  than  is 
consistent  with  his  conscientious  convictions;  but  both  God 
and  man  will  hold  a  man  morally  responsible  for  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  solemn  engagements  voluntarily  assumed.  This  is  not 
in  any  wise  a  question  of  liberty.  It  is,  in  the  deepest  sense, 
a  question  of  morality.  Heresy  hunting,  persecution  for  spread¬ 
ing  erroneous  doctrines,  is  simply  impossible  in  this  age  of  the 
world. 

It  is  given  to  every  man  to  proclaim  from  the  house-top 
anything  he  may  feel  moved  to  utter,  if  it  has  the  least  tinge  of 
decency  about  it.  Dr.  Briggs  has  the  liberty  to  do  this  on 
his  own  responsibility.  But  he  may  not  use  this  liberty  at  the 
expense  of  the  rights  of  others.  The  Presbyterian  Church  has 
an  equal  right  to  be  left  free  to  say  to  what  doctrines  she  will 
gi\  e  her  testimony,  and  to  refuse  her  imprimatur  for  the  pro¬ 
mulgation  of  opinions  which  she  considers  subversive  of  funda¬ 
mental  truth. 

A  Church  would  merit  only  the  contempt  of  men  if  it  should 
offer  articles  of  faith  for  subscription  which  it  did.  not  seriously 
hold;  and  equally  so  if,  holding  them  seriously,  it  did  not  insist 
on  compliance  with  them  on  the  part  of  those  whom  it  had 
placed  in  positions  of  trust  and  influence  on  the  ground  of  ac¬ 
cepting  them.  The  whole  thing  would  not  only  be  immoral, 
but  demoralizing.  Graver  questions  than  mere  individual  lib¬ 
erty  are  at  stake  here.  Both  the  truth  and  the  honor  of  the 
Church  are  involved.  As  much  as  Dr.  Briggs,  the  Presbyterian 
Church  is  on  trial  to-day. 

Scholarship,  too,  has  been  brought  into  the  case  to  influence 
your  decision;  and,  for  that  reason,  a  few  words  must  be  said 
here  in  reference  to  it. 

It  has  been  stated  that  Dr.  Briggs  knows  more  about  the 


6 


Bible  than  all  his  co-Presbyters  taken  together.  And  it  has- 
also  been  boldly  said  that  the  Presbyterian  Church,  in  prose¬ 
cuting  him  for  heresy,  takes  a  position  in  favor  of  a  narrow  and 
superficial  treatment  of  Scripture.  No  doubt  some  believe 
these  statements.  But  they  believe  what  is  not  true.  There 
are  many  scholars  as  learned  as  Dr.  Briggs.  And  our  Church 
is  in  hearty  accord  with  the  best  scholarship. 

The  Presbyterian  Church,  throughout  its  entire  history,  has 
taken  the  highest  ground  in  favor  of  a  broad  and  thorough 
scholarship.  It  favors  the  best  learning  in  every  department 
of  research  and  culture.  It  maintains  a  standard  of  scholar¬ 
ship  as  high  as  that  of  any  other  Church  in  Christendom,  per¬ 
sistently  refusing  to  lower  that  standard,  and  insisting  that  all 
its  ministers,  in  addition  to  possessing  a  liberal  education  in 
the  arts,  shall  be  able  to  read  the  Scripture  in  the  orignal  He¬ 
brew  and  Greek.  As  a  result  of  this  course,  it  has  produced  a 
long  and  distinguished  line  of  scholars,  who  have  been  able, 
not  only  to  handle  all  matters  pertaining  to  divinity  with  con¬ 
summate  ability,  but  also  to  prove  themselves  fully  the  peers 
of  the  best  scholars  in  other  lines  of  research.  Let  him  who 
will,  assert  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  shrinks  back  from  the 
highest  and  best  scholarship  of  the  day.  All  fair-minded  peo¬ 
ple  will  say  it  is  untrue. 

But  the  Presbyterian  Church  places  faith  above  mere  scholar¬ 
ship.  It  recognizes  the  truth  that  the  one  supreme  and  distin¬ 
guishing  characteristic  of  Christian  people  is,  that  they  are  be¬ 
lievers .  They  are  an  army  of  believers,  called  of  God  to  fight 
the  good  fight,  in  which,  not  learning,  but  faith  itself  gives 
them  strength  and  courage,  since  by  it  they  lay  hold  of  the 
arm  of  the  Lord  and  make  real  the  help  of  heaven  for  the  con¬ 
flict  on  earth.  The  power  of  the  Church  is  measured  by  its 
faith  in  the  truth  and  promise  of  God.  And  so  it  has  ever  been 
the  suprerne  duty  of  the  Church  to  guard  against  that  falling 
away  which  comes  through  a  desire  for  new  things,  and  above 
all,  to  see  to  it  that  there  shall  be  faith  on  the  earth  at  the  com¬ 
ing  of  her  Lord. 

A  scholarship,  which  is  not  in  subjection  to  faith,  has  al- 


7 


ways  led  to  doubt,  negation  and  weakness.  And  the  learning 
of  the  world  has  largely,  from  the  beginning,  arrayed  itself 
against  the  revealed  truth  of  God.  For  more  than  1,800  years, 
men  who  have  boasted  of  their  intellectual  powers,  their  culture 
and  progress,  have  sneered  at  the  simplicity  of  the  Gospel  of 
Jesus  Christ. 

This  Gospel  has  ever  been  only  foolishness  to  the  Greeks. 
It  has  not  pleased  God  to  call  many  of  the  wise,  the  mighty 
and  the  noble.  He  has  selected  the  base  and  foolish  and 
weak,*  whom  He  has  made  strong  by  the  grace  of  faith,  to  van¬ 
quish  the  most  powerful  systems  of  human  thought  which  have 
arrayed  themselves  against  His  truth,  and  to  advance  His  cause 
in  the  earth.  In  her  faith,  the  Church  has  been  strong  to  do 
all  things. 

But  the  Church  welcomes  the  deepest  and  broadest  Chris¬ 
tian  scholarship,  and  rejoices  in  the  grand  service  it  renders  in 
the  cause  of  the  truth.  No  one  objects  to  submitting  the  sacred 
Scriptures  to  the  most  searching  scrutiny,  if  it  be  done  with 
reverence,  candor  and  fairness. 

Objections  are  raised  only  against  the  methods  of  what  is 
known  as  the  higher  criticism,  the  most  distinguishing  feature 
of  which  is  its  audacity.  Intoxicated  with  its  own  immensity, 
it  has  brought  itself  under  deserved  suspicion.  It  brands  a  dis¬ 
tinguished  company  of  Christian  scholars,  who  have  done  yeo¬ 
man  service  in  the  maintenance  and  defence  of  God’s  truth,  as 
mere  traditionalists,  who,  in  ignorance  and  prejudice,  have  de¬ 
spoiled  the  people  of  their  Bible  by  erecting  impassable  bar¬ 
riers  about  it,  and  presents  itself  as  the  one  great  oracle  of 
truth  and  certainty.  Nothing,  it  claims,  has  been  settled  by  the 
great  thinkers  of  the  Church  during  more  than  eighteen  cen¬ 
turies. 

It  is  freely  admitted  that  the  defenders  of  higher  criticism 
exhibit  a  large  amount  of  erudition  and  research,  but  when  one 
presses  his  way  through  all  the  material  gathered,  through  the 
language  and  the  style,  and  arrives  at  the  concept  of  the  inner 


*  i  Cor.  i.  26-28. 


8 


substance,  he  finds  nothing  but  conjecture .  The  immense  pile 
rests  simply  on  unverified  conjecture,  on  mere  subjective  impres¬ 
sions. 

The  questions  of  liberty  and  scholarship  are  not  involved  in 
this  case.  We  all  favor  both  in  loyalty  to  truth  and  faith.  Nor 
should  any  other  extrinsic  issue  be  brought  in  to  influence  the 
decision  of  this  court.  It  is  the  duty  of  every  brother  to  de¬ 
cide  candidly  on  the  matter  in  hand  without  personal  prejudice 
on  the  one  hand  or  personal  sympathy  on  the  other. 

Dr  Bribers  has  laid  down  a  well-considered  scheme  of  thought 
as  the  basis  of  what  he  proposes  to  teach.  Any  one  who  has 
read  his  published  works  will  admit  that  the  Inaugural  Address 
gjygg  Qg  nothing  but  a  condensed  and  matured  statement  of  the 
principles  and  doctrines  which  for  years  he  has  been  advancing. 

Dr.  Briggs  himself  maintains  that  he  has  said  nothing  in  his 
address  which  he  has  not  stated  before.  It  is,  therefore,  entirely 
fair  to  judge  of  the  soundness  or  unsoundness  of  his  teaching 
by  the  views  expressed  in  the  Inaugural  ;  and  the  decision 
ought  to  be  on  these  matured  declarations  of  Dr.  Briggs,which 
were  made  under  circumstances  so  sacied  and  lesponsible. 

He  has  not  withdrawn  any  of  them.  The  position  remains 
unchanged.  Dr.  Briggs  delivered  the  Inaugural  Address  after 
he  had  made  an  orthodox  subscription.  Last  year,  after  he 
had  given  his  Response  to  the  Charges  and  Specifications,  in 
which  he  was  thought  by  many  to  have  modified  his  objection¬ 
able  views,  he  republished  the  Inaugural  in  a  new  edition,  and 
stated  in  the  Preface  of  it,  that  he  saw  no  reason  for  changing 
either  the  matter  or  form  of  it,  and  soon  after  published  his 
last  book,  “  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,”  which  is 
only  the  Inaugural  over  again  in  an  aggravated  form.  And  it 
is  plain  from  the  extended  argument  which  he  has  made  that 
he  honestly  holds  the  views  expressed  in  these  productions  of 

his. 

Dr.  Briggs  has  spoken  as  the  counsel  of  his  client,  but  he 
has  not  put  his  client  on  the  witness-stand.  We  have,  there¬ 
fore,  no  sworn  or  approbated  testimony.  He  has  put  in  evi¬ 
dence  a  large  amount  of  documentary  evidence  in  form  of 


9 


articles  and  books  extending  back  a  number  of  years,  and  we 
must  give  to  these  the  value  of  documentary  evidence.  In 
one  of  his  earliest  works  he  stated  that  the  unity  of  Isaiah  was 
to  be  maintained  against  the  divisive  critics  who  hold  that  the 
last  part  of  that  prophecy  was  written  by  the  Great  Unknown 
in  the  latter  part  of  the  Exile.  He  may  have  changed  his  mind 
on  other  points,  and  there  is  no  harm  in  that,  only  it  should 
be  remembered. 

It  is  not  denied  that  Dr.  Briggs  has  made  many  orthodox 
statements  in  the  works  which  he  has  put  in  evidence.  And 
it  is  not  for  these  that  he  has  been  accused,  but  for  utterances 
in  the  Inaugural  which  are  believed  to  be  heretical.  And  here 
let  me  say  that  we  agree  with  Dr.  Briggs  that  no  one  is  to  be 
condemned  on  mere  inferences  from  statements  he  has  made, 
unless  they  be  necessary  inferences. 

If,  for  instance,  one  should  state  that  a  person  had  reached 
a  certain  place  in  one  way,  another  one  in  a  different  way,  and 
a  third  in  a  different  way  still,  then,  although  he  has  not 
affirmed,  in  so  many  words,  that  there  are  three  different  ways 
of  reaching  that  place,  his  statements  necessarily  involve  that, 
and  it  would  be  childish  to  say  that  those  who  charged  him 
with  it  had  accused  him  on  a  mere  inference. 

But  before  passing  to  the  consideration  of  his  argument  on 
the  charges  and  specifications,  it  is  necessary  to  give  some 
attention  to  a  number  of  preliminary  questions  on  which  Dr. 
Briggs  has  expressed  himself. 

The  claim  that  the  prosecution  has  disobeyed  the  order 
of  the  court  respecting  the  transposition  of  texts  and  the  ex¬ 
tracts  from  the  Standards,  is  based  on  a  technicality  so  insig¬ 
nificant  that  any  attempt  to  make  capital  out  of  it  tends  to 
provoke  a  smile.  The  specification  must  set  forth  the  facts 
relied  upon  to  prove  the  charge,  and  must  declare,  as  far  as 
possible,  the  time,  place  and  circumstances.  The  quotations 
from  Scripture  and  from  the  Standards  are  as  much  facts  to 
prove  the  Charge  as  are  the  extracts  from  the  Inaugural.  The 
transfer  of  the  texts  and  quotations  with  the  preliminary  state¬ 
ments,  “These  declarations  are  contrary  to  the  Scripture 


and  Standards,”  respectively  to  a  position  in  advance  of  the 
specifications,  turns  the  charges  and  specifications  into  a  bad 
form;  that  is  all.  If  the  defense  and  the  court  prefer  them  in 
that  shape,  the  prosecution  has  had  no  recourse  beyond  that 
of  taking  an  exception.  But  the  transfer  does  not  alter  the  case 
in  any  wise.  The  texts  and  the  extracts  from  the  Standards 
remain,  as  before,  a  part  of  the  facts  upon  which  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  relies  for  proof  of  the  charges,  and  the  defendant  in 
his  argument  has  recognized  them.  Moreover,  it  should  be 
remembered  that  the  Bible  and  the  Standards  are  in  court 
both  as  law  and  evidence,  and  can  be  used  as  such  by  the 
prosecution  to  maintain  the  charges  and  specifications. 

Equally  without  basis  is  the  pretense  that  charges  4,  5  and 
6  should  be  thrown  out  because  neither  Dr.  Birch  nor  Mr. 
McCook  discussed  the  evidence  offered  in  support  of  them  in 
their  opening.  The  fact  that  these  gentlemen  did  not  discuss 
the  evidence  in  detail,  nor  at  great  length,  is  wholly  imma¬ 
terial.  They  are  not  witnesses;  they  are  advocates.  The  evi¬ 
dence  is  before  you;  it  is  presented  with  the  amended  charges 
and  specifications;  it  has  been  discussed  by  Dr.  Briggs  as  evi¬ 
dence,  and  his  discussion  must  be  discussed  in  turn  by  me. 

Still  more  remarkable  is  the  statement  that  the  special  fea¬ 
ture  of  the  charges  is  that  the  doctrines  mentioned  therein  are 
essential,  and  Dr.  Briggs  maintains,  respecting  some  of  them, 
that  they  are  not  essential.  Whether  they  are  so  or  not  may 
be  more  clearly  seen  after  the  arguments.  But  it  is  unneces¬ 
sary  to  do  more  now  than  to  call  attention  to  his  statement 
in  order  to  show  that  it  is  not  the  important  feature  of  the 
charge.  However,  the  statement  introduced  a  discussion  of 
the  whole  question  as  to  what  may  or  may  not  be  an  essential 
doctrine;  a  discussion  which  introduced  the  consideration  of 
some  other  matters  relating  to  law  and  procedure,  which 
should  be  considered  prior  to  the  general  reply  to  Dr.  Briggs’s 
argument.  For  in  his  discussion  were  considered  the  methods 
whereby  might  be  determined  whether  or  not  a  doctrine  in  the 
Confession  is  essential,  as  well  as  the  bearing  of  such  deter- 


mination  upon  the  compact  said  to  be  made  between  Church 
and  minister  at  the  time  of  ordination. 

Dr.  Briggs’s  methods  of  determining  whether  or  not  any  doc¬ 
trines  are  essential  are  unquestionably  ingenious,  but  they  are 
his  own,  and  therefore  must  be  regarded  merely  as  suggestions 
until  he  can  induce  the  Church  to  revise  the  Standards  so  as  to 
accept  them.  Possibly  prior  to  such  acceptance,  some  doc¬ 
trines  now  mentioned  only  in  the  Confession  and  the  Larger 
Catechism,  might  be  placed  also  in  the  Shorter  Catechism. 
Possibly  also  some  clauses  in  the  chapters  of  the  Confession, 
which  might  be  removed  without  injuring  the  sense,  might  be 
so  linked  that  they  could  not  be  removed.  There  is  no  know¬ 
ing  what  might  have  been,  or  what  might  be,  had  such  meth¬ 
ods  been  chosen  in  the  beginning,  or  if  they  should  be  chosen 
in  the  future. 

•Let  me  remind  this  court  that  the  word  essential  is  not  in 
our  Standards,  and  was  not  brought  into  use  in  1788,  when  they 
were  adopted.  The  precedents  cited  by  Dr.  Briggs  are  valu¬ 
able  opinions,  but  they  are  no  authority  for  us  now.  However, 
the  meaning  of  the  term  essential  is  sufficiently  well  shown 
in  the  extract  from  John  Blair,  read  by  Dr.  Briggs,  in  which 
it  was  shown  that  the  term  refers  not  to  doctrines  essen¬ 
tial  to  salvation  merely,  but  to  those  which  are  essential  to 
the  system  of  doctrine  and  to  the  mode  of  government,  while 
the  authority  by  whom  the  question  as  to  essential  or  non-es¬ 
sential  doctrines  is  to  be  decided  is  determined  with  equal 
clearness  by  the  authorities  read  by  Dr.  Briggs.  For  in  the 
act  preliminary  to  the  Adopting  Act  in  1729,  the  statement  is 
made  that  if  any  minister  of  Synod  or  candidate  for  the  minis¬ 
try  have  scruples,  he  should  declare  them  to  the  Presbytery  and 
Synod,  which  should  determine  whether  the  doctrines,  respect¬ 
ing  which  he  had  scruples,  were  essential  and  necessary. 

The  Plan  of  Reunion  of  the  Synods  in  1758  is  equally  ex¬ 
plicit,  for  Term  II.  states  (Baird,  pp.  614-615):  “That  when 
any  matter  is  determined  by  a  majority  vote,  every  member 
shall  either  actively  concur  with  or  passively  submit  to  such 


determination;  or,  if  his  conscience  permit  him  to  do  neither, 
he  shall,  after  sufficient  liberty  modestly  to  reason  and  remon¬ 
strate,  peaceably  withdraw  from  our  communion,  without  at¬ 
tempting  to  make  any  schism,  provided  always  that  this  shall 
be  understood  to  extend  only  to  such  determinations  as  the 
body  shall  judge  indispensable  in  doctrine  or  Presbyterian  Gov¬ 
ernment. 

So,  also,  in  the  disposition  of  the  Harker  case  of  1763,  in 
which  we  find  that  the  Synod  decided  that  his  principles  “  are 
contraryto  the  Word  of  God  "and  the  approved  Standards  of 
doctrine,”  and,  after  mature  deliberation,  suspended  him 
from  the  ministry.* 

Following  this  line  of  precedents,  the  Form  of  Government 
gives  to  the  General  Assembly  the  power  of  deciding  in  all 
controversies  respecting  doctrine  and  discipline,  the  rights  of 
both  Church  and  minister  being  protected  by  the  right  of  ap¬ 
peal  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  judicatories. 

It  is  not  necessary  then  for  the  prosecution  to  prove  by  his¬ 
torical  statements  whether  or  not  the  doctrines  alleged  to 
have  been  assailed  are,  or  are  not,  essential  to  the  system. 
We  must  be  guided  by  the  Book  of  Discipline.  It  says,  Sec. 
3:  “An  offense  is  anything  in  the  doctrine,  principles  or 
practice  of  a  church  member,  officer  or  judicatory,  which  is 
contrary  to  the  Word  of  God;  or  which,  if  it  be  not  in  its  own 
nature  sinful,  may  tempt  others  to  sin,  or  mar  their  spiritual 
edification.”  It  would  seem  from  this  that,  according  to  our 
present  Constitution,  anything  which  contradicts  Scripture  or 
which  may  work  harm  to  others,  is  essential  enough  to  call 
for  judicial  process.  Section  4  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  shows 
in  what  way  the  offense  is  to  be  proved.  It  states:  “  Nothing 
shall,  therefore,  be  the  object  of  judicial  process,  which  can¬ 
not  be  proved  to  be  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  to  the 
regulations  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded  thereon.”  It 
is  necessary,  therefore,  for  the  prosecution  only  to  present 
proof  such  as,  on  this  alternate  or  double  basis,  shall  satisfy 


*  Baird,  p.  626. 


x3 


this  or  an  appellate  court  that  the  doctrines  are  essential;  for 
the  decision  rests  with  the  court.  No  man  has  the  right  to 
interpret  the  Standards  to  suit  himself,  and  practically  to  re¬ 
vise  them  in  case  any  doctrine  appears  unscriptural.  Still  less 
has  he  the  right  to  assert  that  the  system  contained  in  the 
Confession  requires  that  doctrines  be  sustained  by  “  express 
language  of  Scripture,”  for  the  Confession  accepts  doctrines 
which  can  be  fairly  deduced  from  Scripture. 

In  this  same  connection  was  discussed  the  nature  of  the 
subscription  to  the  Confession  and  what  it  means.  The  opin¬ 
ions  of  the  Westminster  divines,  of  the  Scotch  Church,  or  of 
the  Irish  Church,  are  wholly  foreign  to  the  matter.  The 
meaning  of  subscription  is  made  sufficiently  clear  in  the 
authorities  quoted  by  Dr.  Briggs:  the  Preliminary  Act  of  1729, 
the  Plan  of  Union  of  1758,  as  well  as  by  numerous  authorities 
since;  the  Balch  case  of  1798  (Baird,  621),  the  Kentucky  case 
of  1804-5  (Baird,  634),  the  Cumberland  Schism  case  of  1811 
(Baird,  644-5),  the  Craighead  case  of  1824  (Moore,  54).  For 
all  of  these  show  that  the  minister’s  subscription  to  the  Stand¬ 
ards  cannot  be  separated  from  his  acceptance  of  the  entire 
Bible,  from  his  approval  of  the  Government  and  Discipline  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  nor  from  the  necessary  promise  of 
subjection  to  his  brethren  in  the  Lord. 

SOURCE  OF  AUTHORITY . 

The  first  two  charges  relate  to  the  sources  of  Divine  Author¬ 
ity.  In  them  Dr.  Briggs  is  accused  of  teaching  that,  apart 
from  the  Holy  Scripture,  the  Reason  and  the  Church,  as  foun¬ 
tains  of  divine  authority,  may  and  do  savingly  enlighten  men. 
That  seems  to  be  the  obvious  meaning  of  the  citations  from 
the  Inaugural  Address  which  we  have  appended  to  the  charges. 
We  contend  that  these  statements  of  Dr.  Briggs  contradict 
the  essential  doctrine  of  Scripture  and  of  our  Standards,  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  alone  can  speak  with  divine  authority  on 
questions  of  salvation,  and  that  it  is  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice. 


14 


I  would  call  your  attention,  to  begin  with,  to  the  fact  that 
Dr.  Briggs  has  not  answered  the  arguments  of  Dr.  Birch  and 
Mr.  McCook.  He  contends  that  the  specifications  are  irrel¬ 
evant  to  sustain  the  charges,  and  that  the  citations  from 
Scripture  and  the  Standards  do  not  prove  them  to  be  offenses. 
I  shall  try  to  show  that  he  is  mistaken  in  this  view. 

It  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  get  the  question  at 
issue  clearly  before  our  minds,  and  not  allow  it  to  be  obscured 
by  side  issues. 

It  is  not  denied  that  God  has  left  some  evidence  of  Himself 
in  the  human  reason;  nor  that  it  has  a  proper  function  to  per¬ 
form  in  determining  the  evidences  on  which  the  Divine  Rev¬ 
elation  is  commended  to  us,  and  in  interpreting  that  Revelation 
in  accordance  with  the  best  attainable  light.  Nor  is  it  con¬ 
tended  that  God  has  not  given  authority  to  his  Church  for 
purposes  of  instruction,  discipline,  edification  and  salvation. 

Dr.  Briggss  words  mean  nothing  if  they  do  not  clothe  the 
Reason  and  the  Church  with  such  a  divine  authority  as  em¬ 
powers  them  to  speak  finally  and  with  certainty  on  the  great 
questions  of  salvation  and  life.  He  claims  that  he  does  not 
co-ordinate  these  fountains  of  divine  authority,  but  it  is  also 
clear  that  he  does  not  subordinate  the  Reason  and  the  Church 
to  the  Scriptures.  To  say  of  anything  that  it  is  a  fountain  of 
divine  authority  which  can  give  us  certainty  on  divine  things, 
is  to  state  that  the  authority  is  infallible.  It  would,  in  fact,  be 
no  divine  authority  if  it  were  not  infallible.  That  Dr.  Briggs 
uses  the  term  “  divine  ”  in  that  definite  sense,  is  clear  from  his 
own  words  at  the  beginning  of  his  Inaugural  Address.  He 
there  makes  a  careful  distinction  between  fallible  human  and 
infallible  Divine  authority.  He  states:  “  What  authority  shall 
be  our  guide  and  comfort  in  life  is  a  fundamental  question  for 
man  at  all  times.  ...  If  we  undertake  to  search  the  forms 
of  authority  that  exist  about  us,  they  all  disclose  themselves 
as  human  and  imperfect.  .  .  .  The  earnest  spirit  presses  back 
of  all  these  human  authorities  in  quest  of  an  infallible  guide 
and  of  an  eternal  and  immutable  certainty.”  Probability 


might  have  been  the  guide  of  life  in  more  superficial  times,  but 
in  this  earnest  age  men  will  be  satisfied  only  with  certainty. 
“Divine  authority  is  the  only  authority  to  which  man  can 
yield  implicit  obedience,  on  which  he  can  rest  in  loving  cer¬ 
tainty,  and  build  with  joyous  confidence,”  and  then  adds: 
“  There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine  author¬ 
ity — the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason.”* 

The  Church  and  the  Reason  are  fountains  of  divine  author¬ 
ity,  and,  therefore,  on  his  own  definition,  each  of  these  can 
speak  with  “  eternal  and  immutable  certainty,”  can  act  as  an 
“infallible  guide  ”  of  life,  and  hence  man  can  yield  implicit 
obedience  to  each,  and  rest  on  each  of  them  with  loving  cer¬ 
tainty,  and  build  with  joyous  confidence.  It  is  not  quite  can¬ 
did  in  Dr.  Briggs,  after  having  committed  himself  to  the  strict 
meaning  of  the  word  “  divine,”  to  state  as  he  does  in  the  Re¬ 
sponse  to  the  Charges  f  and  to  repeat  in  his  defense:  “The 
Reason  is  a  ‘  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,’  and  yet  not  an 
‘infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice/4  The  Church  is  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority,  and  yet  not  an  ‘  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.'  The  Bible  is  ‘  a  great  fountain  of  divine 
authority,’  and  it  is  also  ‘  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  ”  This  is  simply  quibbling,  for,  granting  that  Dr. 
Briggs  does  not  say  in  so  many  words  that  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  give  us  a  formal  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  what  he 
does  say  amounts  to  the  same  thing. 

He  invests  them  with  such  divine  authority  that  they  can 
speak  with  “  eternal  and  immutable  certainty ,”  can  be  to  men 
infallible  guides  of  conduct,  and  that  we  may  yield  them  “im¬ 
plicit  obedience.”  What  more  can  any  formal  rule  given  by 
the  Scriptures  do  ?  What  is  the  difference  between  an  infalli¬ 
ble  guide  and  an  mfallible  rule  in  the  matter  of  salvation  ? 

In  his  Inaugural  Address,  Dr.  Briggs  distinctly  affirms  that 
divine  authority  is  for  men  an  “  infallible  guide  ”  of  life,  so  that 
“  we  can  yield  it  implicit  obedience,  rest  and  build  on  it  in  lov- 


*  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  23,  24. 
f  Page  20. 


i6 


ing  certainty  and  with  joyous  confidence  ”  ;  and  then  immedi¬ 
ately  attributes  that  quality  of  divinity  to  the  Reason,  the 
Church,  the  Bible,  precisely  alike.  The  three  are  exactly 
alike  in  respect  to  their  being  fountains  of  divine  authority. 

It  makes,  however,  but  little  difference  whether  you  call  this 
co-ordination  or  not.  We  are  not  engaged  in  a  war  of  words. 
The  meaning  is  too  plain  to  be  mistaken.  Independently  of 
the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  as  fountains  of  divine 
authority,  are,  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  both  sufficient  and  ef¬ 
ficient,  so  that  we  can  yield  them  implicit  obedience  and  build 
on  them  with  loving  certainty  and  joyous  confidence.  Dr. 
Briggs  affirms  that  multitudes  have  found  the  Church  and  the 
Reason  amply  sufficient  to  make  them  acquainted  with  God. 
In  some  instances  this  has  been  true  where  the  Bible  has  been 
found  to  be  inefficient.  And  it  must  be  admitted  that,  in  these 
cases,  the  Reason  and  the  Church  were  superior  to  the  Holy 
Scripture. 

Dr.  Briggs  has  developed  his  idea  of  the  three  fountains  of 
divine  authority  sufficiently  in  statements  to  which  attention  is 
called  in  the  specifications  under  these  two  charges,  to  leave 
no  room  for  doubt  as  to  his  meaning.  He  there  plainly  teaches 
that  the  Bible  fails  to  satisfy  the  religious  wants  of  some  peo¬ 
ple  who,  having  tried  it,  and  turning  away  from  it  in  disap¬ 
pointment,  find  that  satisfaction  in  the  Church  and  the  Reason 
respectively. 

Newman  could  not  find  certainty  and  God  in  the  Bible, 
“  striving  never  so  hard"  but  found  a  place  among  the  faithful 
through  the  institutions  of  the  Church.*  Martineau  could  not 
find  God  in  the  Bible,  but  did  find  Him  enthroned  in  his  own 
soul,t  and  thus,  simply  under  the  guidance  of  Reason,  he  came 
to  be  a  representative  Christian  every  whit  as  good  as  evangeli¬ 
cal  Spurgeon.  The  expression,  “  finding  God,”  in  the  Address 
of  Dr.  Briggs,  is  a  vague  one,  and  it  is  difficult  to  determine  its 
exact  meaning.  Martineau  found  the  personality  of  God  in 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  25. 
f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  27. 


*7 


argumentation;  and  that  was  really  not  a  Christian,  but  a  phil¬ 
osophical  find.  Evidently,  however,  Dr.  Briggs  regards  it  as 
a  Christian  find.  And  he  affirms  that  there  are  multitudes  who 
have  experiences  similar  to  those  of  Newman  and  Martineau. 
He  states  that  God  makes  himself  known  to  men  in  different 
ways,  and  they  “are  influenced  by  their  temperaments  and,  en¬ 
vironments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access  to  God  they  may 
pursued  *  And  if  there  are  three  ways  of  access  to  God  which 
serve  men  equally  well,  then  certainly  the  Bible  is  not  the  only 
rule  of  faith  and  practice;  and,  since  we  have  just  seen  that 
Dr.  Briggs  makes  each  of  the  three  sources  an  “  infallible  guide 
of  life,  it  is  also  not  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice.  This  position  of  Dr.  Briggs  is  made  still  more  clear  by 
a  statement  he  makes  in  his  response  to  the  charges  against 
him:  “  I  affirm,”  he  says,  “  both  the  sufficiency  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  and  the  efficacy  of  the  Scriptures  when  the  Divine  Spirit 
accompanies  them;  but  this  is  not  to  affirm  that  in  fact  all  those 
who  use  the  Scriptures  as  a  means  of  approach  to  God ,  do  cer¬ 
tainly  find  them  efficient  in  their  case,  or  that  the  Divine  Spirit 

may  not  work  effectually  upon  some  men  through  the  Church 
or  the  Reason.”  f 

There  can  be  no  question  that  Dr.  Briggs  conceives  of  the 
Reason  as  being  able  to  speak  with  certainty  and  final  author¬ 
ity  on  the  burning  question  of  human  salvation.  For  he  says: 
“  Here  in  the  Holy  of  Holies  of  human  nature  God  reveals 
himself  to  those  who  seek  Him.”  ^ 

**  Unless  God’s  authority  is  discerned  in  the  forms  of  the 
Reason,  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  any  of  the  heathen 
could  ever  have  been  saved,  for  they  know  nothing  of  the  Bible 
or  Church.  If  they  are  not  savingly  enlightened  by  the  light 
of  the  world  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  the  whole  heathen 
world  is  forever  lost.”  § 

And  if  they  can  thus  find  God  savingly  through  the  Reason, 

*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  28. 

t  Response  to  the  Charges,  p.  20. 

X  Inaugural  Address,  p.  26. 

§  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  88-89. 


i8 


unaided  by  the  revelation  which  God  has  given  in  the  Scrip¬ 
ture,  then  that  revelation  given  in  the  written  word  is  not 
necessary  to  salvation  as  our  standards  affirm. 

It  is  in  this  position  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  taken  that  he  con¬ 
travenes  the  biblical  doctrine  which  our  Church  holds  to  be  a 
cardinal  one,  and  which  assigns  to  the  Scripture  the  place  of 
sole  and  sovereign  supremacy  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
It  holds  the  Scripture  to  be  “  most  necessary  ^  * 

The  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  involved  here.  We  all 
admit  the  necessity  of  His  gracious  working.  The  Bible  is  not 
efficient  without  His  life-giving  energy;  but  with  that  energy 
it  is  efficient  as  nothing  else  can  be;  and  we  believe  that  He 
ever  accompanies  the  word  which  He  Himself  inspired,  in 
gracious  power  in  those  who  are  ready  to  hear. 

Dr.  Briggs's  argument  respecting  the  nature  of  Reason  as  a 
source  of  divine  authority  contained  much  of  mere  interest 
and  more  that  was  true.  It  was  an  eloquent  defence  of  the 
Spirit’s  working  in  the  heart  of  man — the  christianized  man.  It 
was  equally  eloquent  as  a  plea  in  behalf  of  the  position  that 
heathen  may  be  saved  without  intervention  of  missionary  or 
Bible  knowledge.  It  was  a  clear  presentation  of  proof  that 
elect  infants  and  incapables  must  be  saved  without  Bible 
knowledge;  but  all  of  these  matters  are  wholly  outside  of  the 
matter  at  issue.  We  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  here  with 
any  discussion  respecting  salvation  of  heathen,  even  though 
the  Confession  may  poim.  the  way.  We  have  no  desire  to  ob¬ 
struct  it.  Nor  do  we  wish  to  dissent  from  his  statements  gen¬ 
erally  respecting  saving  faith,  assurance  of  faith,  prayer,  and 
the  rest — though  we  might  ask  the  question:  How  do  we  learn 
of  Jesus  Christ  so  as  to  think  of  Him  in  our  lonely  hours  ?  All 
that  Dr.  Briggs  said  on  these  subjects  shows  nothing  more  than 
that  man,  in  order  to  be  the  subject  of  saving  grace  and 
have  religious  experiences,  must  have  a  rational  and  moral 
nature,  and  that  the  reason  is  one  of  the  channels  through 


*Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  I.  sec.  i. 


J9 


which  gracious  influences  come  to  his  soul.  The  Confession 
shows  that  the  Spirit  works  all  these  things  through  the 
Word.  Nor  do  we  care  to  discuss  whether  or  not  an  or¬ 
ganization  refusing  to  acknowledge  Christ’s  authoritative  in¬ 
stitution  of  the  Eucharist  is  a  Christian  Church,  though  we 
might  do  so,  since  the  command  to  observe  the  Eucharist  was 
addressed  no  more  to  His  immediate  disciples  than  were  the 
gracious  promises  quoted  by  Dr.  Briggs.  Nor  do  we  care  to 
discuss  whether  or  not  God  rules  a  man  when  conscience 
rules,  lest  some  might  ask  whose  conscience  is  meant.  Nor 
do  we  care  to  dwell  upon  Dr.  Briggs’s  appeal  to  the  obscure 
and  antiquated  Cambridge  Platonists.  We  might  as  well  point 
to  the  Shakers  for  authority  in  theology.  We  do  wish  to 
consider  the  question  involved  in  Charge  I.,  and  we  ask 
you  to  read  it.  You  see  that  the  charge  is  not  that  the  Rea¬ 
son  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority;  that  it  does  not  involve 
the  question  of  salvation  of  infants,  incapables,  or  heathen; 
that  it  does  not  concern  the  gracious  workings  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  heart  of  one  already  acquainted  with  the  Word 
and  interested  in  it;  that  it  does  not  concern  the  working  of 
the  Spirit  in  the  heart  of  one  unacquainted  with  the  Scripture, 
the  Word  of  God;  but  that  it  does  concern  the  working  with 
the  Reason  of  one  who  is  acquainted  with  the  Scripture  and 
cannot  And  in  it  divine  authority— that  living  certainty  on 
which  he  may  rest;  that  it  does  concern  the  working  of  the 
Spirit  with  the  Reason  of  one  who  rejects  the  Scriptures  as 
we  understand  them. 

It  is  not  our  faith  only  but  the  common  faith  of  the  Christian 
world,  based  on  the  plain  teaching  of  Scripture,*  that  so  far  as 
adults  are  concerned,  there  is  no  salvation  without  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  Christ  and  faith  in  Him.f  “  How  then  shall  they  call 
on  Him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  and  how  shall  they 
believe  in  Him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard  ?  and  how  shall 

*  Romans  x.  13-17;  1  Corinthians  i.  18-24;  1  Thessalonians  ii.  13;  2  Thess- 
alonians  ii.  13. 

f  Romans  x.  14. 


20 


they  hear  without  a  preacher  ?  ”  The  Holy  Spirit  promotse 
their  salvation  through  “  belief  of  the  truth  ”  on  their  part.  He 
gives  living  power  to  the  Word  of  God,  so  that  it  “  effectually 
worketh  in  them  that  believe .”  He  bears  “  witness  by  and  with 
the  word  in  our  hearts.”  The  Spirit  works  through  the  Word 
and  not  through  Church  and  Reason  apart  from  the  Word.* 

This  is  not  the  doctrine  of  Protestants  alone,  but  really  of 
the  whole  of  Christendom.  For  in  Christendom  no  source  of 
divine  authority,  of  infallible  truth  and  light  and  certainty,  is 
recognized  other  than  the  Holy  Scriptures  of  God.  For  even 
the  corrupt  Church  of  Rome  seeks,  through  a  perversion  of 
Scripture,  to  justify  the  authority  it  wields.  Christianity  stands 
on  the  revealed  Word  of  God.  But  this  doctrine  of  the  sover¬ 
eign  supremacy  of  the  Scripture  is  certainly  the  cardinal  doc- 
trine  of  Evangelical  Protestantism. 

The  Church  is  administered  by  fallible,  erring  men,  and  can 
never  speak  of  itself  with  the  certainty  of  divine  authority. 
Dr.  Briggs  insisted  that  we  fly  in  the  face  of  the  Confession, 
the  Form  of  Government  and  the  Book  of  Discipline  unless  we 
concede  the  Church  to  be  a  great  fountain  of  Divine  authority. 
But  the  Standards  subordinate  the  Church  to  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  and  Christ  has  given  no  authority  to  His  Church  except 
that  which  is  prescribed  in  the  Scripture.  And  history  gives 
abundant  illustration  of  the  fact  that  whenever  the  Church  de¬ 
parts  from  the  light  of  the  Bible  and  administers  the  ordinances 
and  sacraments  of  Christ  in  any  other  than  a  biblical  way, 
then  they  become  a  source  of  error,  corruption  and  supersti¬ 
tion,  instead  of  light,  comfort  and  sanctification. 

In  fallen  man  the  Reason  is  blind,  and  gropes  in  the  dark. 
If  Reason  could  speak  with  the  certainty  of  divine  authority, 
that  certainly  ought  to  be  found  in  the  great  philosophies  of 
India  and  Greece,  confessedly  the  best  known  products  of 
Reason.  But  there  everything  is  doubt  and  uncertainty. 
Even  if  you  take  reason  in  the  widest  sense  claimed  for  it  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  you  do  not  mend  the  matter.  For  the  conscience,  unless 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  I.,  sec.  5. 


set  right  by  the  light  of  divine  truth,  is  not  correct;  the  relig¬ 
ious  feelings  are  more  changeable  than  the  moon;  the  aesthetic 
sentiment  is  as  capricious  as  April  weather;  and  who  will  look 
to  the  metaphysical  categories  in  the  joyous  confidence  of  find¬ 
ing  divine  authority  ?  Seriously,  what  does  Dr.  Briggs  mean  by 
the  metaphysical  categories  respecting  the  reason  being  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority?  The  categories  in  philosophy  are 
logical  and  not  metaphysical.  Aristotle  gives  the  following  list  of 
categories  in  his  Organon:  substance ,  quantity ,  quality ,  relation , 
place ,  time ,  position,  possession ,  action ,  and  passion.  Kant,  in 
his  Analytic  gives  the  following  categories  as  forms  of  the  un¬ 
derstanding:  unity ,  plurality ,  totality ,  reality ,  negation,  limi¬ 
tation,  substance  and  accident,  cause  and  effect,  community  and 
reciprocity,  actuality,  possibility  and  necessity.  Is  there  not 
something  ridiculous  in  the  idea  that  these  formal  concepts 
help  to  make  the  reason  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority  ? 
Dr.  Briggs  discoursed  very  eloquently  about  the  light  of  the  Lo¬ 
gos  coming  to  the  reason  of  the  heathen,  and  by  the  help  of  con¬ 
science,  the  religious  feeling  and  these  categories,  leading  them 
to  a  saving  knowledge  of  God.  But  where  are  the  heathen  who 
are  thus  enlightened  ?  Christian  missionaries  go  to  heathen  lands, 
and  almost  without  exception  find  the  heathen  firmly  opposed 
to  the  Christ  of  the  Gospel.  Is  the  light  of  this  Logos,  by 
which  the  heathen  are  savingly  enlightened  in  the  forms  of 
the  reason,  hostile  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  Saviour  of  man  ?  The 
Bible  says  that,  when  the  the  true  Logos  came,  it  was  to 
a  world  blind  in  the  darkness  of  sin.  His  life  was  the  light  of 
men.  “And  the  light  shineth  in  darkness,  and  the  darkness 
comprehended  it  not.”  (John  i:  4,5.)  It  was  necessary  that 
there  should  be  witness  borne  to  the  light,  that  all  men 
through  Him  might  be  saved.  The  Apostle  Paul  was  sent  as 
a  preacher  to  the  heathen  world  where  people  had  the  reason 
together  with  the  conscience,  the  religious  feelings  and  the 
categories,  and  yet  he  affirmed  of  them  that  they  were 
without  God,  without  Christ,  without  strength  and  hope, 
and  in  darkness  and  under  the  power  of  Satan.  When 
Christ  called  the  Apostle  to  His  service  He  said  to  him 


22 


that  He  would  send  him  to  the  Gentiles,  who  were  also 
not  wanting  in  conscience  and  the  religious  feelings,  for 
this  purpose:  “To  open  their  eyes,  and  to  turn  them 
from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  God, 
that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  inheritance 
among  them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith  that  is  in  me.” 
(Acts  2 6:  18.)  Evidently  Christ  and  the  Apostles,  whatever 
may  be  possible  in  regard  to  the  salvation  of  exceptional  cases 
among  the  heathen,  differed  from  Dr.  Briggs  in  their  view  of 
the  reason  of  the  heathen  with  their  conscience,  religious  feel¬ 
ings  and  metaphysical  categories.  The  truth  is,  that  to  sinful 
man,  neither  the  Church  nor  the  Reason  can  speak  with  the 
certainty  of  divine  authority  without  the  light  and  help  which 
come  from  the  Divine  Spirit  speaking  in  and  through  the  Word 
of  God. 

The  Holy  Scripture  teaches  it  to  be  a  part  of  the  divine  wis¬ 
dom  that,  since  the  world  by  wisdom,  through  the  forms  of 
the  reason,  was  unable  to  know  God,  to  save  men  through  the 
preaching  of  His  Word.  “For,  after  that  in  the  wisdom  of 
God,  the  world  by  wisdom  knew  not  God,  it  pleased  God  by 
the  foolishness  of  preaching  to  save  them  that  believe.”* 

Because  of  the  insufficiency,  the  inefficiency  and  the  errancy 
of  both  Church  and  Reason,  it  became  necessary  for  God  to 
embody  His  truth  and  will  in  the  written  Scripture,  that  we 
might  have  certainty  and  be  safely  led.  •  Both  Reason  and 
Church,  without  the  Scripture,  have  always  grossly  erred;  and 
so  perverted  and  blind  is  the  human  heart  that,  even  with  the 
help  of  God’s  Holy  Word,  they  have  again  and  again  sadly 
stumbled. 

Nor  is  it  any  reply  to  this  to  say  that  the  Church  existed 
before  the  Bible.  For  at  that  time  God  revealed  His  will  di¬ 
rectly  to  His  people  by  means  of  His  prophets.  The  Word  of 
God  has  always  been  the  one  source  of  authority,  the  only 
fountain  of  light  and  truth  for  the  Church. 

This  view  is  confirmed  by  Dr.  Briggs’s  own  illustration.  He 


*  i  Cor.  i.  21. 


23 


points  to  Martineau,  for  instance,  from  whom  he  quoted,  as 
one  who  found  God  and  certainty  through  the  Reason.  But 
are  we  so  sure  about  that  ?  There  is  an  abundance  of  proof 
that  Martineau’s  reason  was  sadly  in  error.  For,  in  the  last 
book  from  his  pen,  he  states: 

“  The  blight  of  birth-sin,  with  its  involuntary  perdition;  the 
scheme  of  expiatory  redemption,  with  its  vicarious  salvation; 
the  incarnation,  with  its  low  postulates  of  God  and  man,  and 
its  unworkable  doctrine  of  two  natures  in  one  person,  the  offi¬ 
cial  transmission  of  grace  through  material  elements  in  the 
keeping  of  a  consecrated  corporation;  the  second  coming  of 
Christ  to  summon  the  dead  and  part  the  sheep  from  the  goats 
at  the  general  judgment — all  are  the  growth  of  a  mythical  lit¬ 
erature,  or  Messianic  dream,  or  Pharisaic  theology,  or  sacra¬ 
mental  superstition,  or  popular  apotheosis.”*  Is  the  Reason 
which  thus  discredits  and  sneers  at  some  of  the  most  precious 
doctrines  of  divine  grace,  a  reliable  fountain  of  divine  authority  ? 

It  is  well  known  that  Martineau  denies  the  divinity  of  Christ, 
and,  as  shown  by  the  above  quotation,  rejects  Him  as  a  Sav¬ 
iour.  His  reason  leads  him  to  this  treatment  of  Christ.  Yet 
Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that  by  means  of  this  reason  he  found  God 
enthroned  in  his  own  soul,  and  calls  him  a  representative 
Christian,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  Christ  himself  has 
most  solemnly  stated,  “  No  man  can  come  to  the  Father  but  by 
Me.”  t 

And  we  have  cited  Matt.  xiii.  32-33,  and  Gal.  i.  9,  to  show 
that  the  Scripture  does  not  encourage  us  to  believe  and  teach 
that  those  who  thus  treat  Christ  and  His  Word  are  subjects  of 
saving  grace.  Sections  5  and  6  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Con¬ 
fession  were  referred  to  in  this  connection  to  prove  that  if 
men  yield  to  the  Holy  Spirit  they  will  find  light  and  sal¬ 
vation  and  certainty  in  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

As  a  fountain  or  source  of  divine  authority  in  matters  of  faith 
and  life,  the  Scripture  stands  absolutely  alone  in  the  world;  and 


*  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion,  page  690.* 
f  John  xiv.  6. 


24 


that  for  the  reason  that  it  is  the  Word  of  God — God  Himself, 
speaking  in  and  through  it  to  men,  giving  them  an  expression 
of  His  will,  His  loving  purposes  and  His  gracious  designs  tow¬ 
ard  them,  just  as  Christ,  the  living  Word,  is  the  expression, 
the  manifestation  to  us,  of  the  mind  and  character  of  the  living 
and  true  God. 

The  Bible  occupies  this  unique  position  of  sole  supremacy  as 
an  infallible  standard  of  divine  authority,  since  it  alone  gives 
us  ultimate  truth ,  truth  which  solves  the  burning  questions  that 
agitate  the  human  soul,  and  on  which,  therefore,  we  can  rest 
with  loving  certainty  and  build  with  joyous  confidence. 

The  Scripture  alone  gives  us  a  satisfactory  account  of  the 
creation  of  the  world  and  the  end  for  which  God  made  it;  it 
alone  gives  us  a  sufficient  knowledge  of  the  Being,  Character 
and  Attributes  of  God,  and  of  His  relation  to  us  as  Creator, 
King,  Judge,  Saviour  and  Father;  it  alone  interprets  for  us,  in 
a  true  and  comforting  way,  the  mysteries  of  Divine  Providence; 
it  alone  gives  us  a  reasonable  account  of  the  holy  origin,  the 
sinful  condition,  the  exalted  character  and  the  true  destiny  of 
man;  it  alone  deals  fully  and  efficiently  with  the  great  issues 
of  sin  and  salvation,  of  duty  and  privilege,  of  life,  death  and 
immortality. 

And  because  it  only  contains  these  great  truths,  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  is  the  only  source  of  divine  authority  to  sinful  men,  which 
can  speak  to  them  infallibly  on  all  questions  of  belief  and  life, 
and  on  which  only  they  can  securely  and  safely  trust.  And 
therefore  it  is  that  the  Spirit  bears  witness  “  by  and  with  the 
word  ”  only,  in  our  hearts. 

It  is  absurd  to  place  the  Reason  and  the  Church,  in  any  sense, 
in  juxtaposition  with  the  Scripture.  For,  whatever  might  be 
true  in  a  sinless  race  of  beings,  they  have  no  sure  oracle  to 
pronounce  to  sinful  men  on  any  of  the  great  questions  to  which 
I  have  referred.  But  the  Scripture  claims  for  itself  sole  suprem¬ 
acy  as  an  infallible  guide  in  faith  and  duty,  always  speaking 
with  the  positiveness  of  divine  authority,  and  never  in  the  fal¬ 
tering  and  apologetic  tones  which  Reason  and  the  Church  are 
compelled  to  use. 


25 


It  claims  to  extend  in  breadth  and  reach  far  beyond  the 
highest  attainment  of  human  perfection  ; — * * * §  it  declares  that 
those  who  are  plunged  in  distress  through  the  evils  of  necro¬ 
mancy,  will  seek  light  by  rallying  to  the  cry,  “To  the  Law 
and  to  the  Testimony,”  assuming  that  a  right-minded,  rational 
people,  possessed  of  that  fear  of  God  which  is  the  beginning 
and  also  the  end  of  wisdom,  will  ask  in  their  darkness,  What 
does  God  say  ft  This  is  a  better  rendering  of  the  Hebrew 
than  the  fanciful  interpretation  of  Dr.  Briggs.  It  declares  that 
when  men  come  to  shame  and  confusion  it  is  because  in  their 
foolishness  they  have  rejected  the  Word  of  God,  there  being 
no  wisdom  in  them;J  and  that  if  an  erring  people  had  but  at¬ 
tended  to  the  divine  Word,  “  they  should  have  turned  them 
from  their  evil  way,  and  from  the  evil  of  their  doing. ”§ 

In  every  case  the  written  word  is  all-sufficient. 

And  I  desire  particularly  to  call  the  attention  of  my  breth¬ 
ren  to  two  things  which  are  made  plain  in  the  New  Testament. 

One  is  that,  with  Christ,  the  Scripture  (which  then  consisted 
only  of  the  Old  Testament)  was  in  every  case  an  ultimate  and 
final  authority.  He  never  assigns  any  divine  authority  what¬ 
ever  to  the  Church  and  Reason  aside  from  Scripture,  but  brings 
both  Reason  and  Church  invariably  to  the  bar  of  Scripture.  In 
his  view,  zvhat  the  Holy  ScripUire  says,  God  says.  He  met 
every  form  of  opposition  and  temptation,  and  solved  all  diffi¬ 
culties  by  a  simple  and  direct  appeal  to  the  Word  of  God  writ¬ 
ten.  And  this  is  true  of  small  bits  of  Scripture,  single  sen¬ 
tences.  He  invariably  invested  them  with  such  ultimate  and 
final  divine  authority  that  a  mere  reference  to  them  ended  the 
matter.  “  It  is  written  ”  was  ever  with  the  Saviour  a  sufficient 
and  final  answer.  And  the  fact  that  that  terse  expression  oc¬ 
curs  twenty-five  times  in  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  alone,  leads 
us  to  see  how  frequently  it  was  on  the  lips  of  Christ.  But  the 
fact  that  Jesus  treated  the  Scripture  alone  as  an  ultimate  and 

*  Psalm  cxix.  96. 

f  Isaiah  viii.  20. 

X  Jeremiah  viii.  8,  9. 

§  Jeremiah  xxiii.  22. 


26 


final  authority,  binding  on  faith  and  conscience,  crops  out  in 
various  other  ways  in  the  Gospel.  He  showed  the  leaders  of 
the  Church  to  be  astray  for  the  reason  that  they  had  made  the 
Word  of  God  of  none  effect.*  He  convinced  the  rationalistic 
Sadducees  of  error  because  they  were  ignorant  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture.  t  And  He  accused  the  Jews  of  being  perverted  by  sin 
and  prejudice  in  not  receiving  Him,  since  by  searching  the 
Scriptures,  which  testified  of  Him,  they  might  assure  them¬ 
selves  of  His  claims.  J 

The  other  is ,  that  the  Apostles,  following  in  the  footsteps 
of  the  Master,  also  made  the  Scriptures  the  ultimate  and  final 
standard  of  appeal  for  authority  in  their  preaching.  They  rea¬ 
soned  out  of  the  Scripture,  enforced  the  claims  of  the  Gospel 
by  argument  from  Scripture,  and  set  their  hearers  to  search 
the  Scripture  to  ascertain  whether  the  things  which  they  pro¬ 
claimed  were  true  or  not.  An  appeal  to  Scripture  was  always 
final  with  the  Apostles,  and,  in  that  sense,  they  never  appealed 
to  either  Church  or  Reason.  For  instance,  when  Paul  had 
stated:  “The  Scripture  hath  concluded  all  under  sin,”  that 
settled  the  matter  on  that  point,  since  it  was  the  voice  of  God 
speaking  in  Scripture. 

Let  any  one  study  carefully  the  third  chapter  of  Galatians, 
and  almost  any  chapter  from  Hebrews,  and  he  cannot  fail  to 
see  that  the  Apostles  considered  any  citation  from  Scripture, 
however  brief,  as  clothed  with  the  authority  of  God,  which  must 
not  be  questioned,  but  should  be  implicitly  believed  and  fol¬ 
lowed  in  life. 

On  the  authority,  then,  of  both  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  the 
Scripture  alone  is  a  sufficient,  infallible,  and  safe  fountain  of 
divine  authority.  It  is  the  final  and  only  standard  of  appeal. 
And  if  that  was  true  of  the  Old  Testament  Scripture  it  holds 
good  with  increased  force  in  regard  to  the  New.  It  was  writ¬ 
ten  that  we  might  “  know  the  certainty  ”  of  divine  truth.  It  is 


*  Mark  vii.  7-13. 

\  Matthew  xxii.  29. 
%  John  v.  39,  40. 


27 


the  final  part  of  the  testimony  which  God  gave  of  His  Son,  not 
to  believe  which  is  to  charge  God,  Himself,  with  lying,  and 
this  thought  is  made  particularly  strong  in  i  John  v.  io,  be¬ 
cause  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  the  believer’s  heart  is  con¬ 
trasted  with  the  objective  testimony  which  God  has  given 
concerning  His  Son,  either  orally  or  in  the  written  word.  Dr. 
,  arbitrarily  assigns  a  subjective  meaning  to  the  word 

witness  in  both  sentences  of  this  verse.  It  is  expressly  stated 
that  in  the  last  sentence  it  has  reference  to  the  unbeliever. 
And  the  testimony  of  God  concerning  His  Son  to  the  unbe¬ 
liever  is  objective  in  the  Scripture  or  spoken  word,  while  on 
the  other  hand  in  the  case  of  the  believer,  it  is  subjective, 
in  the  heart,  “  by  and  with  the  word.”  Dr.  Huther,  in  Meyer’s 
Commentary,  states,  that  this  testimony  of  God  “is  the  record 
which  He  has  given  (as  a  permanent  record)  of  his  Son.”  He 
who  does  not  believe  in  that  makes  God  to  be  a  liar.  The 
entire  Scriptures  are  the  oracles,  the  true  sayings,  the  utter¬ 
ances  or  words  of  God,  according  to  which,  he  who  will  teach 
in  the  Church  of  God,  should  speak. 

And  because  the  Scriptures  hold  this  unique  position,  our 
standards  declare  that  they  were  given  by  the  immediate  in¬ 
spiration  of  God,  and  as  such  are  “  the  Word  of  God  written,” 
most  necessary  for  guidance  and  as  a  standard  of  final  appeal 
in  all  matters  of  doctrine  and  life.  “  The  Word  of  God  which 
is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments, 
is  the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy 
Him.”  *  Quite  in  harmony  with  this  vital  doctrine  of  Holy 
s  Scripture,  our  Confession  declares  that  Scripture  to  be  the  Su¬ 
preme  Judge,  as  the  voice  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which  all  con¬ 
troversies  in  religion  are  to  be  judged,  to  the  test  of  which  all 
decrees  and  opinions  are  to  be  brought,  and  in  whose  sentence 
alone  we  are  to  rest,  and  is  thus  most  necessary . 

In  setting  up  Reason  and  the  Church  as  foundations  of  divine 
authority,  which  give  certainty,  in  addition  to  the  Bible,  Dr. 
Briggs  contradicts  this  vital  doctrine.  He  surrenders  the  noble 


*  Shorter  Catechism  Answer  to  2d  Question. 


28 


position  of  evangelical  Protestantism,  for  which  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  has  so  long  contended  with  all  her  strength 
against  the  claims  of  rationalists  and  a  sacerdotal  church. 

This  position,  which  leads  Dr.  Briggs  to  welcome  rationalists 
to  the  household  of  the  faithful,  and  according  to  which  Mar- 
tineau  is  as  good  a  Christian  as  Spurgeon,  is  entirely  at  vari¬ 
ance  with  Presbyterian  faith  and  life.  If  rationalists,  like 
Martineau,  who  reject  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  and  with 
it  all  the  distinctive  doctrines  of  saving  grace,  are  to  be  con¬ 
sidered  good  representative  Christians,  then  we  may  as  well 
close  our  Theological  Seminaries  and  churches  and  disband 
our  Boards  of  Home  and  Foreign  Missions,  and  devote  our¬ 
selves  to  any  other  calling  in  which  we  may  be  able  to  glorify 
God  and  serve  our  fellow-men.  They  involve  a  superfluous  ex¬ 
penditure,  and  practical  men  will  not  be  slow  in  reaching  that 
conclusion. 

This  teaching  of  Dr.  Briggs  will  also  mislead  the  people  in 
that  it  will  encourage  them  to  look  for  the  waters  of  salvation 
to  broken  cisterns  which  cannot  hold  them,  and  ought  there¬ 
fore  to  be  condemned  by  this  court  of  the  Church  of  Christ. 


INSPIRA  TION. 

The  third  charge  has  reference  to  the  subject  of  inspiration. 
In  it  Dr.  Briggs  is  accused  of  teaching  that  there  are  errors  in 
the  original  text  of  the  Holy  Scripture  as  it  came  from  its  in¬ 
spired  authors,  and  thus  contradicts  the  essential  doctrine  of 
that  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  of  our  Church  that  the 
Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God  written,  immediately  in¬ 
spired  and  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

In  what  Dr.  Briggs  said  on  this  charge,  he  really  made 
no  attempt  to  answer  the  arguments  of  the  prosecution,  but 
directed  his  discourse  to  a  different  end.  He  maintains  that 
those  who  oppose  his  views  on  this  point  have  their  judgments 
warped  by  an  ironclad  dogma  of  verbal  inspiration,  that  his 
teaching  is  not  contrary  to  the  doctrines  indicated,  and  that 


29 


his  view  of  inspiration  is  in  harmony  with  both  the  Scripture 
and  the  Standards.  But  the  mere  assertion  of  Dr.  Briggs  that 
the  offense  charged  is  not  in  contravention  of  essential  doc¬ 
trine,  cannot  now  be  received  as  proof  any  more  than  the  un¬ 
proved  affirmation  of  the  prosecution  can  be  so  received. 

I  have  spoken  to  this  point  already,  but  it  is  so  important 
that  it  must  be  referred  to  here  again. 

Dr.  Briggs  makes  the  following  statement:* 

“  Your  attention  is  again  called  to  the  principle  established 
in  the  introduction  to  my  defence.  I  showed  you  that  it  was 
not  sufficient  that  a  doctrine  should  be  essential  and  necessary 
in  your  opinion.  It  must  be  essential  and  necessary  to  the 
Westminster  system.  It  is  not  enough  that  you,  or  certain 
dogmatic  teachers,  or  the  General  Assembly  by  a  majority 
vote,  should  declare  a  certain  doctrine  to  be  inconsistent  with 
an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  It  must 
be  shown  that  it  is  really  inconsistent  with  the  Westminster 
system  itself.  You  cannot  insist  that  your  deductions  and 
reasoning  should  be  accepted  by  me,  if  I  hold  the  opinion 
that  your  reasonings  and  deductions  are  false.  If  I  can  hold 
the  two  doctrines  without  regarding  them  as  inconsistent, 
you  cannot  make  them  inconsistent  to  me.  You  may  exact 
of  me  that  I  shall  be  faithful  to  the  doctrine  of  the  true  and 
full  inspiration  of  the  Word  of  God  written.  But  you  cannot 
exact  of  me  that  I  shall  say  there  are  no  errors  in  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture — for  the  reason  that  the  Confession  does  not  assert  this, 
and  I  am  not  bound  to  your  views  of  consistency  or  inconsis¬ 
tency,  but  only  to  the  Confession  and  to  my  own  judgment. 
If  the  prosecution  had  claimed  and  had  tried  to  prove  that  the 
Confession  teaches  as  an  essential  doctrine  attested  by  Holy 
Scripture  that  there  are  no  errors  in  Holy  Scripture,  then  it 
would  have  been  easy  to  test  every  such  citation  and  show 
that  no  such  teaching  can  be  found.” 

The  principle  which,  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  underlies  his 


*  Defence  of  Professor  Briggs,  p.  87. 


3° 

own  defence,  if  interpreted  as  he  interprets  it,  is  an  erroneous 
principle. 

What  if  a  man  were  to  teach  Pantheism,  and  when  charged 
with  contradicting  the  Westminster  Standards  were  to  say:  “  I 
hold  Pantheism,  but  I  subscribe  to,  and  I  believe  the  doctrine 
of  God  contained  in  the  Standards;  you  might  convict  me,  if 
you  could  point  out  any  section  in  the  Confession  which  teaches 
that  Pantheism  is  not  a  true  interpretation  of  the  doctrine  of 
God  ?  But  you  have  no  right  to  insist  that  I  shall  cease  to 
teach  Pantheism,  for  the  reason  that  the  Confession  does  not 
forbid  it.  If  I  can  hold  Pantheism  and  the  doctrine  of  God 
taught  in  the  Confession,  without  regarding  them  as  inconsis¬ 
tent,  you  can  not  make  them  inconsistent  to  me.”  You  might 
say:  “No  man  could  be  so  unreasonable,  so  thoroughly  illogi¬ 
cal  as  that.”  But  if  it  were  to  happen,  you  might  well  regard 
a  judicial  process  as  necessary,  and  the  courts  of  the  Church 
would  then  be  called  upon  to  decide  whether  the  two  doctrines 
were  consistent  doctrines.  In  the  passage  from  Dr.  Briggs’s 
Defence,  quoted  above,  he  denies  that  a  church  court,  at  least 
that  this  court,  has  a  right  to  determine  whether  he  can  hold 
certain  doctrines  and  consistently  subscribe  to  the  Presbyteri¬ 
an  Standards.  He  claims  that  it  isfchis  own  right  to  determine 
whether  his  doctrines  conflict  with  essential  and  vital  doctrines 
of  the  Standards.  It  seems  impossible  that  he  should  have 
fallen  into  such  an  error. 

Let  it  be  admitted  that  in  the  opinion  of  the  defendant  the 
doctrines  which  he  has  taught  are  not  inconsistent  with  es¬ 
sential  doctrines  of  the  Standards;  but  that  they  are  consider  ¬ 
ed  essential  by  the  committee  which  represents  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church.  How  shall  the  question  be  settled’?  It  is  to 
be  settled  judicially.  It  is  to  settle  questions  of  just  this  kind 
that  trials  like  this  are  instituted.  It  is  for  the  courts,  and  for 
the  courts  alone,  to  decide  whether  such  divergences  are  vital. 
The  committee  has  argued  that  the  divergence  is  vital;  Dr. 
Briggs  holds  that  it  is  not  vital.  He  can  not  say  that  this 
court  has  no  right  to  determine  the  consistency  of  his  doctrines 
with  the  standards. 


31 


The  Craighead  case  does  not  justify  you  as  a  court,  as  I  have 
shown,  in  permitting  an  accused  person  to  be  the  judge  of  his 
own  errors.  And  besides  this,  there  are  certain  great  princi¬ 
ples  of  theology  which  imply  inevitable  and  necessary  infer¬ 
ences.  When,  for  example,  Dr.  Briggs  argues,  as  he  does, 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  sovereign  free  action  of  the  Spirit  of 
God  involves  the  further  doctrine  that  heathen  who  have  never 
known  about  Jesus  Christ  are  saved,  he  makes  an  inference  of 
the  very  kind  against  which,  in  the  passage  cited  above,  he 
complains.  The  inference  is  contradictory  of  other  parts  of 
the  Confession,  but  it  is  none  the  less  a  deduction,  such  as  he 
claims  the  committee  has  no  right  to  make  with  respect  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  Infallibility  of  Holy  Scripture.  As  in  the  case 
of  the  illustration  which  I  have  given  above,  it  might  be  held 
by  a  committee  of  prosecution  that  the  confessional  doctrine 
of  God  was  inconsistent  with  Pantheism,  although  nothing  is 
said  about  Pantheism  in  the  Confession  itself;  so  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  case,  it  is  for  this  court  to  decide  whether  the  great  prin¬ 
ciple  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  that  the  Holy  Scriptures,  the 
Word  of  God  written,  are  immediately  inspired  of  God  and  are 
infallible,  is  consistent  with  a  denial  of  their  historical  accur¬ 
acy,  and  their  freedom  from  error.  It  is  not  enough  to  create, 
as  Dr.  Briggs  has  done,  a  kind  of  limbo  and  consign  to  it, 
under  the  name  of  traditionalism,  whatever  he  may  condemn 
on  the  authority  of  certain  opinions  of  men  who,  in  many  cases, 
have  no  authority  in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  The  natural 
and  necessary  inferences  from  the  confessional  doctrine  of 
Scripture,  make  it  impossible  for  the  accused  to  throw  upon  the 
committee  the  burden  of  proving  his  inconsistency.  This  court 
is  called  upon  to  decide  the  very  question  which  the  accused 
claims  he  alone  can  decide  for  himself.  Otherwise  his  plea  of 
not  guilty  is  sufficient  without  the  presentation  of  evidence  or 
argument. 

The  question  is  fairly  before  us  for  settlement.  And  in 
order  to  arrive  at  a  just  conclusion  we  must  candidly  compare 
the  teaching  of  the  Scripture  and  the  Standards  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  with  that  of  Dr.  Briggs. 


32 


But  before  proceeding  to  consider  these  questions  I  will  dis¬ 
pose  of  one  matter  to  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  alluded.  It  is  the 
accusation  he  made  against  the  General  Assembly. 

In  regard  to  this  I  will  only  say  that  the  Assembly  in  its 
deliverance,  following  numerous  precedents,  declared  only  what 
has  always  been  the  belief  not  only  of  Presbyterians,  but  of  all 
evangelical  Christians,  and  in  doing  so  acted  clearly  within  its 
constitutional  power,  for,  according  to  our  form  of  Govern¬ 
ment,  chapter  12,  section  5,  it  is  the  duty  of  the  Assembly  to 
bear  “testimony  against  error  in  doctrine.”  Dr.  Briggs  cites 
John  Wallis  as  a  better  interpreter  of  the  Confession  than  the 
General  Assembly,  but  he  neglects  to  notice  that  Wallis  and 
the  Assembly  do  not  differ  on  this  point,  for  the  former  does, 
not  charge  that  there  is  error  in  the  Scripture. 

We  are  not  raising  any  question  as  to  the  mode  of  inspira¬ 
tion,  but  confine  ourselves  to  the  product  of  inspiration  in  the. 
written  Word. 

Our  Standards  affirm  of  the  Scriptures,  that  God  Himself 
committed  them  to  writing,  that  all  the  canonical  books  “  are 
given  by  inspiration  of  God,”  and  that,  as  such,  they  constitute 
the  “  Word  of  God  written,”  to  which  is  to  be  ascribed,  “  entire 
perfection  ”  and  “  infallible  truth.”* 

This  is  the  Christian  doctrine  of  inspiration  of  which  that, 
catholic  and  philosophic  scholar,  Prof.  Henry  B.  Smith,  has 
given  the  following  liberal  definition: 

“  Inspiration  is  that  divine  influence  by  virtue  of  which  the 
truths  and  facts  given  by  revelation,  as  well  as  other  truths 
and  facts  pertaining  to  God’s  Kingdom,  are  spoken  or  written 
in  a  truthful  and  authoritative  manner.”  +  It  “  gives  us  a  book 
properly  called  the  Word  of  God,  inspired  in  all  its  parts. 
The  inspiration  is  plenary  in  the  sense  of  extending  to  all 
the  parts,  and  of  extending  also  to  the  words.”  J  In  a  ser¬ 
mon  on  inspiration  which  Dr.  Smith  preached  before  the 
Synod  of  New  York  and  New  Jersey  in  1855,  he  said:  “The 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  I.,  sections  1,  2,  5. 
f  Introduction  to  Christian  Theology,  p.  204. 

\  Introduction  to  Christian  Theology,  p.  209. 


33 


divine  influence  which  is  its  source  extends  to  and  pervades  the 
whole  contents  of  the  Scriptures,  both  historical  and  doctrinal; 
it  includes  the  whole  of  the  strict  divine  revelations,  and  also 
whatever  the  sacred  writers  related  as  historians  and  witnesses. 
Inspiration  is  the  organizing  principle  of  the  whole  Bible,  just 
as  the  principle  of  life  is  the  organizing  energy  in  every 
bodily  frame,  extending  to  all  its  parts,  even  those  seemingly 
most  insignificant.”  * 

“  Its  object  is  the  communication  of  truth  in  an  infallible  man¬ 
ner,  so  that,  when  rightly  interpreted,  no  error  is  conveyed.” 
“  The  inspiration  of  the  Bible  involves  its  infallibility .  Inter¬ 
preted,  as  all  works  must  be,  by  its  real  spirit,  it  gives  us  truth 
without  error .  Light  and  life  come  from  the  ministry  of  the 
Word.”  t 

I  have  made  these  extended  quotations  from  Dr.  Henry  B. 
Smith’s  writings,  for  the  double  reason  that  his  broad  and  pro¬ 
gressive  spirit  is  acknowledged  by  all,  and  further,  that  he  has 
given  us  a  fair  statement  of  this  Christian  doctrine  as  it  has 
always  been  substantially  held  in  all  parts  of  the  living  Church 
of  Christ. 

The  majority  of  Presbyterians  undoubtedly  hold  to  the  the¬ 
ory  of  verbal  inspiration,  repudiating,  however,  the  idea  of 
mechanical  dictation;  while  others  accept,  with  Dr.  Smith,  the 
plenary  theory.  Both  theories  are  acknowledged  as  orthodox 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church,  and  there  is,  in  fact,  no  essential 
difference  between  the  two,  as  Dr.  Smith’s  definition  con¬ 
clusively  shows. 

But  it  is  impossible  to  include  the  views  advanced  by  Dr. 
Briggs  under  either  theory.  They  are  destructive  of  the  very 
idea  of  inspiration. 

To  begin  with,  we  observe  that  Dr.  Briggs  exchanges  the 
current  statement,  “  The  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God,”  for 
“  The  Scriptures  contain  the  Word  of  God,”  which  he  declares 
to  be  the  true  doctrine,  meaning  thereby  not  the  entire  con- 


*  Sermon  on  Inspiration, 
f  Sermon  on  Inspiration. 


34 


tents  of  the  Bible  from  cover  to  cover,  but  only  some  parts  of 
it.*  The  Scriptures  contain  the  Word  of  God,  but  they  contain 
also  something  besides  that.  And  he  insists  that  this  is  the 
meaning  of  our  confessional  statement.  But  he  forgets,  as  Dr. 
Warfield  has  shown,  “that  the  old  Protestant  distinction  be¬ 
tween  the  Word  of  God  and  the  Scriptures  made  the  Word  of 
God  the  broader  term,  inclusive  not  only  of  the  Scriptures 
(which  it  were  far  from  doubting  to  be  a  part  of  the  Word  of 
God),  but  also  of  all  that  God  had  spoken  to  the  fathers  by  the 
prophets,  and,  in  these  last  days,  by  His  Son;  while  the  mod¬ 
ern  distinction  makes  the  Scriptures  the  broader  word,  within 
which  is  to  be  found  much  besides  the  Word  of  God.  Hence, 
the  statement  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  answer,  that  “  the 
Word  of  God,  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments  is  the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how  we 
may  glorify  and  enjoy  Him,”  the  phrase,  “  which  is  contained 
in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,”  is  a  defini¬ 
tion  of  the  “  Word  of  God  ”  which  is  our  only  rule,  and  is  meant 
to  distinguish  it  from  that  asserted  Word  of  God  contained  in 
the  ecclesiastical  tradition  of  the  Romanists  and  the  new  rev¬ 
elations  of  the  sectaries;  and  that  therefore  the  statement  is 
far  from  throwing  doubt  on  the  confessional  assertion  that  the 
Scriptures  are  the  “Word  of  God  written,”  but  is  rather  a  repe¬ 
tition  of  it.  t  According  to  Prof.  Henry  B.  Smith,  this  view 
of  Dr.  Briggs  was  held  by  the  Arminians  and  Socinians  of  the 
seventeenth  century,  and  is  now  the  position  of  German  Ra¬ 
tionalism,  which  has  infected  the  whole  German  theology.  £ 
To  what  extent  the  contents  of  Scripture  are  not  the  Word  of 
God,  we  may  be  able  to  determine  further  on. 

The  strange  thing  in  Dr.  Briggs’s  view  of  inspiration  is,  that 
it  admits  of  errors  in  the  original  Scriptures. 

Prof.  Briggs  affirms  that  the  number  of  errors  in  the  Bible  is 
very  great,  and  that  to  say  that  they  were  not  in  the  orginal 

*  Presbyterian  Review,  1884,  p.  381.  The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Rea¬ 
son,  p.  99. 

f  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  1892,  pp.  375,  376. 

\  Sermon  on  Inspiration. 


35 


text  is  sheet  assumption,  on  which  no  mind  esn  rest  with  cer¬ 
tainty.  It  is  a  ghost  of  modern  evangelicalism  which  the 
creeds  of  the  Church  do  not  sanction,  and  which  the  Bible 
itself  does  not  teach.  * * * § 

He  makes  two  statements  on  this  subject,  which  give  the 
largest  possible  room  for  the  entrance  of  error  into  the  com¬ 
position  of  Scripture. 

The  first  is,  that  the  errors  occur  in  “the  circumstantials” 
of  Scripture,  in  the  non-essential  parts,  in  the  “  human  set¬ 
tings  ”  which  hold  “the  precious  jewel,”  in  that  section  of  the 
Bible  that  theologians  commonly  account  for  from  the  provi¬ 
dential  superintendence  of  the  mind  of  the  author.f 

It  is  worthy  of  note  here  that,  according  to  the  teachings  of 
Di .  Briggs,  there  are  portions  of  the  Bible  which  are  non-es¬ 
sential,  circumstantial,  human  settings,  and  have  no  further 
guarantee  of  divine  authority  than  a  general  providential  super¬ 
intendence.  He  does  not  tell  us  to  what  extent  these  elements 
pervade  the  contents  of  Scripture.  But  when  we  call  to  mind 
that  Dr.  Briggs  includes  under  this  class  of  Scripture  some  of 
its  history,  the  narration  of  facts  and  incidents  and  personal 
experience,  geography,  science,  and  those  parts  to  which  he 
ascribes  the  character  of  fiction  and  legend,  J  we  have  a  very 
large  part  of  Scripture  which  has  become  untrustworthy,  owing 
to  the  possible  presence  of  errors  in  it,  and  which,  therefore, 
cannot  be  an  infallible  rule  of  belief  and  duty. 

In  regard  to  the  composition  of  this  portion  of  Scripture,  Dr. 
Briggs  states: 

“  It  may  be  that  this  providential  superintendence  gives 
infallible  guidance  in  every  particular;  and  it  may  be  that 
it  differs  but  little,  if  at  all,  from  the  providential  superin¬ 
tendence  of  the  fathers  and  schoolmen  and  theologians  of 
the  Christian  Church.”  §  The  writers  of  some  of  this  por- 

*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  35. 

f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  35. 

\  Biblical  History,  pp.  22,  23,  25,  30;  Biblical  Study,  p.  232;  The  Congrega¬ 
tionalism  Feb.  21,  1889. 

§  Inaugural  Address,  p.  35. 


■ 


36 


tion  of  Scripture  have  a  divine  way  of  historical  composition- 
They  bring  God  nearer  to  us,  encompass  us  with  heavenly 
influence,  and  make  us  sensible  of  the  touch  of  God. 

But  this  is  not  inspiration  at  all.  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith  called 
this  theory  a  ‘  perversion  of  terms,  and  a  resort  to  vague  gen¬ 
eralities  which  seem  profound  because  they  are  somewhat  un¬ 
common.  Almost  any  one  of  moderate  capacity,  after  a  few 
easy  lessons,  can  talk  glibly  in  such  a  style.’T  And  then  he 
goes  on  to  say  that  “  this  is,  in  fact,  a  heathen  rather  than  a 
Christian  mode  of  speech;  Cicero  long  ago  said,  ‘  In  every  man 
there  is  a  divine  afflatus.’  ”  Almost  any  good  writer  or  speaker, 
with  the  fire  of  truth  in  his  heart,  can  encompass  us  with  heav¬ 
enly  influence  and  make  us  sensible  to  the  touch  of  God. 

This  idea  of  a  separation  between  the  essentials  and  circum¬ 
stantials,  between  the  human  setting  and  the  precious  jewel 
of  truth,  is  utterly  impossible.  Great  and  important  doctrines 
are  vitally  bound  up  with  the  incidental  narration  of  personal 
and  historic  facts,  and  the  two  stand  or  fall  together. 

On  this  point  Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith  said: 

“  All,  even  the  most  insignificant  portions  of  the  original 
Scriptures,  have  their  life  from  the  Spirit,  even  as  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  life  embraces  the  hairs  of  the  head,  as  well  as  the 
beating  of  the  heart.  All  is  shaped  by  the  wise  builder 
into  one  glorious  temple,  which  speaks  of  Him  from  the  foun¬ 
dation  to  the  topmost  stone.”  “  Even  the  most  trivial  per¬ 
sonal  details  may  serve  an  important  office,  such  as  inspiration 
could  not  neglect,  in  verifying  the  authorship  and  proving  the 
authenticity  of  epistles  and  prophecies.’’^ 

The  cloak  of  Paul,  Elijah’s  mantle,  and  the  little  wine  com¬ 
mended  to  Timothy,  help  to  prove  the  genuineness  of  the 
biblical  writings.  “  Genealogies  instruct  in  the  truth  of  the 
Messiahship.”  “  The  fact  of  the  death  of  Christ  contains  the 
truth  of  the  atonement;  it  is  that  truth/’  “  It  is  in  vain,  ’  says 


*  Biblical  History,  p.  30. 
f  Sermon  on  Inspiration. 
\  Sermon  on  Inspiration. 


37 


Dr.  Smith,  “  to  try  to  limit  inspiration  to  doctrine  and  truth, 
excluding  history  from  its  sphere.  The  attempt  is  as  unphil- 
osophical  as  it  is  unscriptural.”  *  That  is  sound  speech. 

The  same  position  has  been  maintained  by  all  the  great 
divines  of  the  Evangelical  Church.  It  is  certainly  the  faith  of 
Pi  esbyterians,  and  this  idea  of  an  extensive  field  of  erroneous 
circumstantials  in  the  Bible — the  exact  demarcation  of  which 
no  one  is  able  to  determine — is  wholly  subversive  of  that  faith, 
an  idea  against  which  our  Church  claims  the  right  to  protect 
itself.  It  robs  the  Bible  of  its  infallibility. 

The  other  postulate  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  regard  to  the  Scriptures, 
which  makes  way  for  the  entrance  of  errors,  has  reference  to 
Scriptural  language  and  expression.  And  this  is  by  far  the  more 
serious  of  the  two,  since  it  necessarily  leads  to  the  most  de¬ 
structive  inferences,  and  a  teacher  of  religion  must  be  held  re¬ 
sponsible  for  inferences  which  will  be  necessarily  drawn  from 
his  propositions,  although  in  this  case  the  proposition  itself  is 
heretical  enough  to  merit  our  condemnation. 

Says  Dr.  Briggs: 

“  There  is  nothing  divine  in  the  text — in  its  letters,  words, 
or  clauses.”  “  Language  is  rather  the  dress  of  thought.” 

“  The  divine  authority  is  not  in  the  style  or  in  the  words,  but 
in  the  concept.”  “  We  force  our  way  through  the  language  ^ 
and  the  letter,  the  grammar  and  the  style,  to  the  inner  sub¬ 
stance  of  the  thought,  for  here,  if  at  all ,  we  shall  find  God.”  + 

Inspiration  and  divine  authority  do  not  extend  to  the  print, 
the  text,  the  letters,  the  words,  the  clauses,  the  style,  and  the 
grammar;  that  is,  the  entire  visible  text ,  all  that  you  can  see  of 
the  Bible  with  your  eyes,  from  the  beginning  of  Genesis  to  the 
end  of  Revelation.  This  is  not  divinely  inspired;  it  is  but  the 
human  form  or  setting,  which,  in  some  way,  holds  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  the  divine  thought  or  concept.  The  concept  only  is 


*  Sermon  on  Inspiration, 
f  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  30,  31,  32. 


38 


inspired.  Now,  I  have  not  the  slightest  desire  to  do  Dr. 
Briggs  an  injustice  by  way  of  misstating  his  position.  He  com¬ 
plains  that  his  brethren  do  not  understand  him;  and  I  think 
that  is  partly  true,  for  many  of  his  brethren  think  him  far  more 
orthodox  on  this  point  than  he  really  is.  “I  will  give  his  view 
in  his  own  words.” 

In  the  Presbyterian  Review  he  states  that,  “in  the  higher 
and  more  distinctively  religious  meaning  of  the  word,  it  is  not 
the  biblical  books  throughout — it  is  only  the  Word  of  God 
which  is  in  the  biblical  books — that  can  be  spoken  of  as 
inspired .”  They  are  the  “formal  envelope”  enclosing  the 
“living  divine  organism  of  truth.”  He  affirms  that  “  the  abso¬ 
lute  divine  truth  in  the  Bible  must  be  discriminated  from  the 
relative  truths  in  which  it  is  enveloped,  or,  in  other  words,  the 
divine  substance  has  been  given  in  human  forms,  and  no  one 
will  truly  understand  the  Bible  until  he  has  learned  to  distin¬ 
guish  between  this  temporal,  circumstantial  and  variable  form, 
from  the  eternal,  essential  and  permanent  substance.”*  And 
if  that  be  the  case,  then  the  great  mass  of  mankind  will  never 
understand  the  Bible,  since  they  will  not  be  able  to  make  that 
distinction.  No  scholars,  Dr.  Briggs  included,  have  as  yet 
'«  been  able  to  trace  that  dividing  line.  In  Biblical  Study  he 
expresses  himself  on  this  subject  in  the  following  words  : 

“  We  cannot,  in  the  symbolical  or  historical  use  of  the  termr 
call  this  providential  care  of  His  Word,  or  superintendence 
over  its  external  production ,  inspiration.  Such  providential 
superintendence  is  not  different  in  kind  with  regard  to  the 
Word  of  God,  the  visible  Church  of  God,  or  the  forms  of  the 
sacraments.”  f 

There  has  been,  then,  according  to  Dr.  Briggs,  no  definite 
divine  influence  at  work  in  the  production  of  the  Written  Word. 

Quite  in  harmony  with  this  line  of  reasoning,  Dr.  Briggs, 
about  two  years  ago,  in  his  book  “Whither?”  charged  the 


*  Presbyterian  Review,  1884,  pp.  384,  385. 
f  Biblical  Study,  p.  161. 


39 


Christian  world  with  the  fault  of  building  their  faith  on  a  book, 
on  the  “  authority  of  the  external  word  of  the  letter  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  instead  of  the  living  God  and  Saviour”  (p.  282).  That 
charge  would  be  entirely  meaningless  if  God  were,  in  any  true 
sense,  the  author  of  what  is  written  in  the  book. 

Still  more  recently  he  stated:  “  These  human  features  ren¬ 
der  it  improbable  that  the  Bible  should  be  free  from  errors  in 
its  human  setting.  The  psychology  may  be  crude,  the  meth¬ 
ods  of  reasoning  sometimes  inexact,  the  rhetoric  occasionally 
extravagant,  the  language  of  some  of  the  writers  rude,  their 
conceptions  provincial,  their  knowledge  of  the  earth  defective. 
But  how  could  it  be  otherwise  if  the  divine  revelation  was  to 
come  through  such  men  as  the  ancient  times  were  capable  of 
producing  ?  Holy  Scripture  does  not  claim  inerrancy  in  its 
human  setting,  and  it  does  not  in  fact  possess  it.”  * 

“  The  Evangelist  seems  to  have  overlooked  the  fact  that  one 
of  these  passages  is  from  Malachi  3:  1.  Here  are  two  slips  of 
memory  on  the  part  of  the  Evangelist,  such  as  any  writer  is 
liable  to  make  ”  t 

This,  then,  is  the  matured  conviction  of  Dr.  Briggs.  It  is 
what  he  teaches  and  means  to  teach.  The  entire  text  of  the 
Bible,  from  cover  to  cover,  is  but  external  form,  the  circum¬ 
stantial  human  setting.  It  is  of  human  production,  and  not 
inspired  of  God.  The  concept,  thought  or  substance  back  of*, 
the  visible  text,  alone  is  inspired;  in  order  to  find  that,  we 
must  force  our  way  through  the  language,  style  and  grammar. 
In  no  other  way  shall  we  find  God. 

You  may  determine  the  exact  historico-grammatical  sense 
of  a  passage  of  Scripture,  and  you  cannot  then  say,  this  is  now 
the  Word  of  God.  It  is  only  the  word  of  man,  who  has  had  re¬ 
vealed  to  him  the  substance  of  divine  truth  which  in  his  own 
way  he  has  tried  to  express  in  writing.  The  preacher  cannot 
say  of  any  text,  from  which  he  may  discourse  to  the  people, 


*  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  p.  108. 
f  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  p.  109. 


40 


“  Thus  saith  the  Lord.”  It  is  only  man's  putting  of  God's 
truth. 

I  will  not  raise  any  question  here  as  to  the  possibility  of  con¬ 
veying  to  the  mind  of  man  divine  truth  in  the  way  of  concepts 
not  expressed  in  the  terms  of  language.  To  most  people  it 
will  occur  that,  inasmuch  as  infallible  truth  must  be  definite 
truth,  such  truth  cannot  be  grasped  by  the  human  mind  except 
in  the  definite  forms  of  speech.  How  could  the  prophet  know 
that  he  had  a  message  from  God,  except  it  were  given  him  in 
definite  terms  ?  But  be  that  as  it  may.  It  is  a  philosophical 
question  in  dispute  which  we  need  not  touch  here. 

We  will  take  for  granted,  for  argument’s  sake,  that  God  did 
communicate  the  substance  of  the  truth  of  Divine  Revelation 
to  the  writers  of  the  Bible  in  the  way  of  unformed  concepts, 
which,  under  His  general  Providence,  He  allowed  them  to 
work  into  the  Scriptures  by  their  own  power  and  wisdom  in 
the  form  of  history,  biography,  dogmatic  statements,  fiction, 
drama,  legend  or  poetry,  such  as  might  be  most  congenial  to 
their  natures  and  habits  of  mind. 

The  biblical  books  are  thus,  strictly  speaking,  the  products 
of  human  genius.  The  written  Bible  is  the  human  setting 
which  holds,  in  various  proportions,  the  jewel  of  divine  truth. 

It  does  not  therefore  differ  essentially  from  the  books  of 
other  good  men.  They  all  express  some  divine  truth.  A  per¬ 
son  reading  even  such  a  book  as  “Whither?”  may  become 
conscious  of  the  presence  of  a  divine  concept  struggling  to  don 
its  dress. 

The  only  way  in  which,  on  this  theory,  the  Bible  can  differ 
from  other  good  books,  is,  that  it  may  give  us  divine  truth  in  a 
greater  degree,  since  the  writers  of  it  received  a  direct  revela¬ 
tion  from  God  of  the  substance  of  divine  truth.  But  we  could 
never  be  altogether  certain  of  that. 

Let  me  call  the  attention  of  my  brethren  here  to  the  fact 
that,  on  this  point,  Dr.  Briggs  squarely  contradicts  the  biblical 
doctrine  as  set  forth  in  our  Standards.  That  makes  God  to  be 
the  Author  of  the  written  word. 


41 


A  few  words  should  here  be  said  on  the  confessional  doctrine 
of  inspiration  and  the  canon.  In  chapter  I.  section  I,  it  is 
stated,  that  for  the  better  preserving  and  propagating  of  the 
truth,  etc.,  God  committed  His  revelation  of  Himself  “  wholly 
unto  writing.”  Dr.  Briggs  did  not  give  the  true  statement  of 
this  section  when  he  said  that  all  that  was  wholly  committed 
to  writing  was  “the  knowledge  of  God,  and  of  His  will,  which 
is  necessary  unto  salvation.”  The  Confession  does  not  say 
that,  and  those  who  wrote  it  certainly  did  not  mean  to  state 
that;  for,  as  I  will  show  directly,  the  controlling  divines  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly  believed  that  the  whole  Bible,  from 
the  beginning  of  Genesis  to  the  end  of  Revelation,  was  written 
by  the  verbal  dictation  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Hence  they  stated 
God  committed  the  same  wholly  unto  writing.  Naturally, 
therefore,  they  declare  in  the  second  section  that  the  66  books 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  are  the  Word  of  God  written.  Inspira¬ 
tion  was  God’s  method  of  committing  them  to  writing,  and 
this  is  in  section  8  declared  to  be  immediate  in  the  Hebrew 
•and  Greek  languages.  In  the  third  section  the  Scripture  is 
fenced  off  from  human  writings.  And  in  the  fourth  it  is  af¬ 
firmed  that  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture  depends  not  on 
the  testimony  of  any  man,  but  wholly  upon  the  God  of  truth, 
the  Author  thereof,  and  is  to  be  received  for  the  reason  that 
it  is  the  Word  of  God,  or,  as  it  is  stated  in  the  Larger  Cate¬ 
chism:  “4.  The  very  Word  of  God.”  And  it  is  plain,  from  what 
I  have  already  said,  that  by  this  the  authors  of  the  Confession 
meant  the  entire  written  Word. 

Dr.  Briggs’s  subjective  test  of  the  canonicity  of  Scripture  is  not 
that  of  the  Confession,  for  the  Confession  establishes  the  canon  on 
objective  testimony,  and  makes  the  saving  energy  and  authority*' 
of  Scripture  to  depend  on  the  witness  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart 
by  and  with  the  Word,  according  to  section  5.  John  Ball,* whom 
Dr.  Briggs  has  cited,  and  some  of  whose  writings  form  a  large 
and  important  part  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  makes  it 
very  clear  in  what  way  they  established  the  canon  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.  In  his  short  treatise  he  says: 

Q.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  those  books  are  the  Word 
of  God  immediately  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  Proph¬ 
ets  and  Apostles  ? 


*  See  Mitchell.  The  Westminster  Assembly,  pp.  377,  403,  419. 


42 


A.  First,  By  testimony  of  the  Church;  secondly,  Constancy 
of  the  saints;  thirdly,  Miracles  wrought  to  confirm  the  truth; 
and  fourthly,  By  the  antiquity  thereof. 

The  error  of  Dr.  Briggs  begins  with  limiting  inspiration  to  the 
communication  of  truth  to  the  prophets  by  the  Lord,  or  to  revel¬ 
ation  in  the  strict  sense.  He  denies  it  in  respect  to  the  written 
word. 

God  revealed  truth  to  many  men  like  Enoch,  Noah,  Abra¬ 
ham  and  Elijah,  whom,  so  far  as  we  know,  He  never  inspired 
to  write  the  divine  word. 

Inspiration  takes  revelation  for  granted;  and,  as  connected 
with  it,  has  reference  to  that  divine  action  on  the  mind  of  man, 
which  assures  the  right  communication  of  it  to  others  in  lan¬ 
guage.  It  also  assures  the  truthful  communication  of  every¬ 
thing  which  God  desires  to  communicate  to  mankind.  “  All 
Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,”  but  not  all  Scripture 
is  revelation,  in  the  strict  sense. 

Inspiration  has  for  its  object  both  the  writers  and  their  writ¬ 
ings,  but  its  one  ultimate  and  objective  point  is  the  writing ,  the 
Scripture ,  for  if  it  had  stopped  short  of  that  in  the  writer,  it 
would  have  missed  its  end  entirely. 

For  if  the  Divine  Spirit,  who  imparted  the  revelation  to  the 
prophets  in  completeness  and  without  mistake,  did  not  also 
guard  the  act  by  which  it  was  recorded  with  the  same  care, 
then  “  it  perished  as  such,  with  the  men  to  whom  it  was  im¬ 
parted,  and  all  that  the  world  has  is  the  fallible  impression  it 
made  on  their  minds,  or  their  fallible  account  of  that  impres¬ 
sion.”  * 

Inspiration  is  a  special  divine  influence,  acting  not  only  on 
man,  but  through  him,  for  the  production  of  a  Scripture  of  in¬ 
fallible  truth. 

Dr.  Henry  B.  Smith  affirms  that  it  extends  to  both  the  mat¬ 
ter  and  form  of  the  Bible;  the  matter  in  the  form  in  which  it  is 
conveyed  and  set  forth.  +  It  extends  to  the  language,  for 


*  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Inspiration,  p.  97. 
f  Sermon  on  Inspiration. 


43 


“  holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  It  is  impossible  to  limit  inspiration  to  the  concept, 
for  Peter  tells  us  that  some  of  the  writers  did  not  understand 
the  meaning  of  what  they  wrote.  They  were  “  searching  what 
or  what  manner  of  time  the  Spirit  of  Christ  which  was  in  them 
did  signify,  when  it  testified  beforehand  the  sufferings  of  Christ, 
and  the  glory  that  should  follow.”  * 

The  point  which  I  desire  to  emphasize  is,  that  inspiration,  in 
its  biblical  and  confessional  sense,  has  for  its  object  to  produce 
the  Written  Word.  It  is  the  Writings,  the  Scriptures ,  which 
are  inspired  of  God.  I  shall  give  further  proof  of  this  directly. 
I  do  not  intend  to  say  that  the  human  element  has  no  part  in 
Scripture.  It  was  utilized  throughout,  but  the  divine  is  every¬ 
where  supreme  and  controlling. 

The  writers  of  the  Bible  speak  for  God,  in  His  name,  and  by 
His  authority.  They  were  His  spokesmen,  proclaiming  and 
conveying  His  truth.  The  human  instrumentality,  with  all 
its  peculiarity,  was  utilized  by  the  divine  Spirit  for  the  convey- 
ance  of  God’s  infallible  message  to  men. 

And  it  is  the  union  of  absolute  truth  and  divine  authority 
which  constitutes  the  claim  of  the  Scripture  to  our  faith  and 
obedience. 

A  special  inspiration  was  necessary,  that  in  a  world  of  sin 
and  error  we  might  have  the  unerring  truth  of  God,  to  whose 
infallible  guidance  we  might  entrust  ourselves. 

Other  books  give  us  truth  mixed  with  error,  but  the  inspired 
Book  gives  us  truth  without  error.  Inspiration  gives  us  truth¬ 
fulness  as  its  product  in  the  Holy  Scripture.  It  may  not  be 
the  completeness  of  truth,  for  part  of  the  truth  can  be  truth¬ 
fully  written;  it  may  not  be  truth  expressed  in  the  most  per¬ 
fect  and  beautiful  form,  for  the  unlearned  peasant  can  speak 
truth  as  well  as  the  most  polished  scholar;  it  may  not  be  truth 
at  all,  but  the  false  sayings  and  evil  deeds  of  the  wicked  are 
truthfully  reported. 

The  authors  of  the  Bible  wrote  the  simple  truth  which  God 


*  i  Peter  i.  n. 


44 


desired  mankind  to  know.  But,  says  one,  what  practical  use 
is  there  in  talking  about  the  inerrant  originals  ?  They  are  not 
in  existence.  The  Bible  as  we  have  it  has  discrepancies  in  it, 
and  we  are  obliged  to  get  on  with  them  as  best  we  can.  That 
is  true.  We  all  accept  the  position.  And  a  reverent  scholar¬ 
ship  will  do  its  best  to  explain  the  discrepancies  in  a  way  that 
will  harmonize  with  the  perfect  truthfulness  of  God’s  Word. 
But  when,  starting  from  the  fact  that  the  Bible,  as  we  have  it, 
is  not  free  from  discrepancies,  some  boldly  assert  that  there 
were  errors  in  the  original  autographs  of  Scripture,  and  that 
we  must  accept  that  as  an  established  truth,  then  we  demur. 
No  one  is  warranted  in  making  such  an  assertion. 

This  is  a  point  of  the  highest  importance,  since  it  will  vitally 
affect  the  faith  and  life  of  the  Church.  There  is  a  vital  differ¬ 
ence  here.  It  is  the  difference  between  divine  truth  and  human 
error,  between  a  book  which  is  truly  of  God,  and  one  which  is 
not.  It  makes  a  vast  difference  whether  the  water  which 
I  drink  comes  from  a  perfectly  pure  spring,  and  has  gathered 
only  a  few  foreign  substances  on  its  way  to  me,  or  comes  from 
a  fountain  which  is  itself  foul.  For,  in  the  former  case,  I  may 
find  the  source  of  the  difficulty,  and  remove  it,  and  so  supply 
myself  with  water  in  all  the  sparkling  purity  in  which  it  flows 
from  its”  source.  But  in  the  latter  case  I  should  despair  of 
ever  having  pure  water,  unless  another  fountain  were  dis¬ 
covered. 

And  so,  if  the  original  Scriptures  were  absolutely  true,  as 
God  their  Author  is  true,  then  we  have  in  that  truth  a  firm 
assurance  that  all  copies,  in  spite  of  the  blemishes  which  have 
gathered  on  them  through  copying,  transmitting  and  human 
carelessness,  are  yet  immeasurably  true;  then  also  we  can 
understand  the  better  why  it  is  that  in  all  copies,  translations 
and  languages,  the  Word  comes  with  the  same  divine  power 
and  authority;  and  we  may  also  cherish  the  hope  that  in 
God’s  good  Providence  we  may  light  again  on  the  inerrant 
originals. 

But  it  is  not  merely  on  account  of  its  great  importance  to 


45 


the  Church  that  this  doctrine  should  be  believed  and  defended 
at  all  hazards,  but  for  the  reason  that  it  is  taught  in  the  Word 
of  God. 

Having  thus  shown  that  Dr.  Briggs  teaches  a  view  of  in¬ 
spiration  which  destroys  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures, 
since,  according  to  it,  the  written  Word  is  only  of  human 
production,  we  might  cease  our  argument  here,  and  claim 
that  by  taking  such  a  position  he  has  gone  quite  outside  of 
the  bounds  of  the  faith  held  by  Presbyterians,  who  believe 
in  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible  on  the  ground  of  the  complete 
inspiration  and  truthfulness  of  the  written  Word  of  God.  But 
Dr.  Briggs  contends  that,  not  ours,  but  his  view  of  inspiration 
is  the  doctrine  both  of  the  Scripture  and  the  Church.  It  is 
necessary,  therefore,  to  show  the  entire  untenabieness  of  this 
claim. 

The  Bible  claims  for  itself,  as  written,  full  inspiration  and 
entire  veracity. 

But  to  prove  the  inspiration  and  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
on  the  authority  of  the  writers  involves,  according  to  Dr. 
Briggs,  a  vicious  circle,  a  fallacy,  which  has  driven  men  away 
from  the  Bible.  But  rightly  understood,  that  argument  does 
not  move  in  a  circle,  nor  does  it  involve  a  fallacy.  If  there 
was  such  a  thing  as  inspiration,  only  the  prophet  himself  and 
God  could  be  personal  witnesses  to  that  fact,  and  these  two 
are  perfectly  trustworthy  witnesses. 

The  writers  also  of  the  Scripture  support  each  other,  and  we 
receive  their  testimony  in  respect  to  their  divine  inspiration  and 
authority  for  the  reason  that  they  are  credible  ivitnesses.  And 
that  credibility  is  established  independently  of  their  claim  to 
inspiration.  In  the  last  resort  it  rests  on  the  testimony  of 
Christ,  the  incarnate  God  Himself,  who  commissioned  them 
to  teach,  and  gave  them  the  Spirit  of  truth  for  that  purpose; 
for,  in  uttering  His  truth  He  bore  “them  witness,  both  with 
signs  and  wonders  and  with  divers  miracles  and  gifts  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  according  to  His  own  will.”  *  The  testimony, 


*  Heb.  Ii.  4. 


46 


therefore,  which  the  writers  of  the  Bible  bear  to  their  divine 
authority  to  speak  for  God  is  to  be  believed  for  the  reason  that 
it  is  properly  attested  and  worthy  of  belief.  Their  claim  was 
acknowledged  by  the  living  Church  of  their  own  generation. 
The  historical  fact  that  their  writings  continued  to  be  received 
as  canonical  shows  that  the  acceptance  of  their  claim  did  not 
terminate  with  their  own  lives,  nor  with  the  passing  away  of 
the  generation  in  which  they  lived. 

We  have  thus  the  living  testimony  of  the  living  Church  of 
their  own  day;  and  that  testimony  will  be  valid  to  the  end  of 
time.  It  is  of  infinitely  greater  value,  on  the  point  at  issue, 
than  that  which  the  critics  elicit  from  the  canons  of  subjective 
impressions. 

The  Holy  Scripture  claims  for  itself  two  things  in  respect  to 
this  matter: 

One  is,  that  it  is  inspired  of  God  throughout.  It  fully 
bears  out  our  confessional  statement,  that  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  taken  as  a  whole, 
are  the  “Word  of  God  written.”  They  make  the  one  Holy 

Scripture. 

It  speaks  of  its  contents  as  the  Laws,  the  Statutes,  the  Com¬ 
mandments,  the  Judgments,  the  Testimony,  the  Covenant,  the 
Words  and  the  Oracles  of  God,  terms  which  would  have  no 
meaning  if  the  divine  authorship  did  not  also  extend  to  the 
language  of  Scripture.  Of  numerous  passages  cited  in  the 
New  Testament  from  the  Old,  in  which  God  was  not  the 
speaker,  it  is  affirmed  that  they  were  spoken  by  the  mouth  of 
God,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  * 

In  Zechariah  we  have  the  definite  statement  that  the  words 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  are  “  the  words  which  the  Lord  of 


*  Acts  iv.  25;  Matt.  xv.  4;  Matt.  xix.  4,  5;  Mark  xii.  36;  John  x.  34,  35; 
Gal.  iii.  22;  Heb.  i.  6,  7,  8;  iii.  7;  iv.  4,  7;  vii.  21;  x.  15;  1  Peter  ii.  6. 


47 


Hosts  hath  sent  by  His  Spirit  by  the  hand  of  the  former 
prophets .”  * 

It  is  expressly  declared  that  “  all  Scripture  is  given  by 
inspiration  of  God;  ”  and  both  the  connection  in  which  this 
text  stands  and  linguistic  analogy  t  demonstrate  the  correct¬ 
ness  of  the  wording  of  the  received  text.  Evidently  the  words 
“all  Scripture,”  of  verse  1 6,  are  identical  with  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  verse  15,  by  which  the  entire  Old  Testament  was 
meant.  But  the  revised  version,  “every  Scripture  inspired  of 
God,”  only  strengthens  the  point  to  which  I  am  now  speaking, 
for  the  word  “  Scripture  ”  is  invariably  used  in  the  Bible  for  an 
inspired  writing;  and  it  is  therefore  as  unbiblical  as  it  is  anti¬ 
confessional  to  imply,  as  Dr.  Briggs  seems  to  do  in  his  re¬ 
sponse,  that  there  are  Scriptures  which  are  not  inspired.  It 
was  the  whole  Old  Testament  Scripture  which  was  able  to 
make  Timothy  wise  unto  salvation;  and  it  had  that  excel¬ 
lence  for  the  reason  that  all  those  Scriptures  were  inspired 
of  God. 

And  the  holy  contents  of  the  book,  so  lofty  in  its  spiritual 
and  moral  elevation,  confirm  this  statement.  Also  its  struct¬ 
ural  unity,  around  which  are  arranged,  in  symmetrical  beauty, 
the  great  varieties  of  subject-matter,  and  numerous  incidental 
statements  of  more  than  a  score  of  writers  who  lived  in  differ¬ 
ent  climes  and  countries,  and  at  a  distance  from  each  other, 
in  time,  of  more  than  fifteen  centuries,  so  that  the  Bible  is  really 
but  one  book,  manifesting  but  one  mind,  and  unfolding  but 
one  theme,  gives  added  proof  that  it  is  the  product,  in  all  its 
parts,  of  the  infinite  wisdom  and  goodness  of  the  one  Divine 
Spirit. 

Peter  claims  the  same  divine  authority  for  his  own  writings 


*  Zech.  vii.  12. 

f  The  true  reading  of  Matt.  ii.  3,  is  not  every  Jerusalem ,  but  “  all  Jerusalem 
in  Luke  vii.  6,  not  every  fie.h ,  but  “  all  flesh,"  and  in  Acts  ii.  36,  not  every 
house  of  Israel,  but  “  all  the  house  of  Israel.’ 


4s 

which  he  assigns  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  and  assigns 
it  equally  to  those  of  Paul. 

It  is  stated  in  express  terms  that  the  divine  inspiration  ex¬ 
tends  to  both  thought  and  language  ;  for  Peter  declares  that 
“no  prophecy  of  the  Scripture  is  of  any  private  interpretation. 
For  the  prophecy  came  not  at  any  time  by  the  will  of  man,  but 
holy  men  of  God  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy 
Ghost.”  * 

And  Paul  writes  to  the  same  point  when  he  states  :  “  Now 
we  have  received  not  the  spirit  of  the  world,  but  the  spirit  which 
is  of  God;  that  we  might  know  the  things  which  are  freely 
given  us  of  God,”— all  of  which  might  refer  to  concepts, — but 
he  proceeds  to  say,  “  which  things  also  we  speak ,  not  in  the 
zvords  which  man  s  wisdom  teacheth ,  but  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
teacheth ,  comparing  spiritual  things  with  spiritual.”  f  1 

In  these  two  statements  of  Peter  and  Paul,  taken  together 
with  the  connection  in  which  they  stand,  we  have  the  biblical 
view  of  inspiration.  It  contains  the  following  particulars  : 
First ,  the  Spirit  made  known  to  the  writers  the  things  to  be 
communicated;  second ,  they  were  inspired  clearly  to  stee  the 
matter  to  be  conveyed;  thirds  they  were  conscious  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  made  knozvn  the  truth  to  them  and  illumined  their  minds; 
fourth ,  while  they  themselves  gave  expression  to  the  divine 
message  they  were  conscious  also  that  the  Holy  Spirit  assisted 
them  in  that  expression;  and  fifth ,  what  they  thus  spake  and 
wrote  was,  in  a  real  sense,  the  message  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
both  in  respect  to  matter  and  expression,  and,  therefore,  so 
sure,  true  and  trustworthy  that  only  the  spiritually  blind  would 
fail  to  receive  it.  And  it  is  worthy  of  note  that  this  definition 
of  inspiration  by  the  apostles  is  in  exact  accord  with  the  prom¬ 
ise  Christ  made  to  them  that  they  should  receive  “  the  Spirit 
of  truth  to  guide  them  into  all  truth.”  J 


*  2  Peter  i.  21. 
f  1  Cor.  ii.  12,  13. 
X  John  xvi.  13. 


49 


He  certainly  reads  the  New  Testament  to  little  purpose,  who 
does  not  perceive  that  the  writers  of  it,  in  places  too  numerous 
to  instance,  both  directly  and  indirectly,  teach  the  inspira¬ 
tion  of  the  Old  Testament  writings  in  the  strictest  and  fullest 
sense.  Men  of  a  progressive  and  liberal  way  of  thinking,  who 
do  not  themselves  believe  in  the  doctrine,  admit  this. 

Canon  Farrar  states  that  Paul’s  view  of  the  nature  of  inspira¬ 
tion  led  him  to  make  “  The  words  of  Scripture  co-extensive 
and  identical  with  the  words  of  God;”  and  that  he  used  “the 
word  and  letter  of  Scripture  as  full  of  divine  mysterious  oracles, 
which  might  not  only  be  cited  in  matters  of  doctrine,  but  even 
to  illustrate  the  simplest  matters  of  contemporary  fact.”'* 
Richard  Rothe,  a  German  writer  on  Dogmatic  Theology, 
who  himself  holds  only  to  a  minimum  of  inspiration,  if  he  holds 
to  any,  makes  this  remarkable  admission:  “The  New  Testa¬ 
ment  authors  look  upon  the  words  of  the  Old  Testament  as 
immediate  words  of  God,  and  put  them  forward  as  such,  even 
those  of  them  which  are  not  recorded  as  direct  declarations  of 
God.  They  see  nothing  in  the  sacred  volume  which  is  simply 
the  word  of  its  human  author,  and  not  at  the  same  time  the 
very  word  of  God  Himself.  In  all  that  stands  *  written  ’  God 
Himself  speaks  to  them,  and  so  entirely  are  they  habituated 
to  think  only  of  this,  that  they  take  the  sacred  word  written 
itself,  as  such,  to  be  God’s  word,  and  hear  God  speaking  in  it 
immediately.  ...  It  admits  of  no  doubt  that  the  apostoli¬ 
cal  writers  .  .  .  refer  the  prophetic  inspiration  to  the 

actus  scribendi  of  the  biblical  authors.”  + 

And  this  holds  good  with  equal,  if  not  greater  force,  of  their 
own  writings  in  the  New  Testament.  They  do,  indeed,  make 
that  claim  for  them.  But  how  has  it  come  to  pass  that  a  doc¬ 
trine  in  which,  to  say  nothing  of  the  Old  Testament  authors, 
all  the  New  Testament  writers  agree,  a  doctrine  which  they 
make  to  the  utmost  emphatic,  working  it  into  the  very  warp 


*  Life  of  St.  Paul.  One  volume,  pp.  27,  28. 

f  Quoted  by  Dr.  B.  B.  Warfield  in  Homiletical  Review,  May,  1891,  pp.  413, 
414. 


5o 


and  woof  of  their  writings,  is  no  longer  to  be  believed  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  but  is  to  be  thrown  aside  as  incredible  on 
the  demand  of  a  body  of  critics  who  have  as  yet  found  nothing 
trustworthy  to  put  in  its  place  ?  If  this  is  now  to  be  the  posi¬ 
tion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  what  then  becomes  of  our 
boasted  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  the  Holy  Scripture  ? 
Wherein  can  it  longer  be  the  rule  of  either  faith  or  conduct  ? 

The  most  marked  feature  of  our  Church  hitherto  has  been 
its  scriptural  character.  It  has  based  its  doctrines,  polity  and 
life  on  the  divine  authority  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  It  has  re¬ 
ferred  everything  to  a  “  Thus  s ait h  the  Lord"  This  has  given 
it  power  and  gained  for  it  the  confidence  of  mankind.  Where 
shall  be  the  seat  of  our  infallible  authority  hereafter  ?  Shall  it 
be  the  Church,  the  Pope,  the  Reason,  or  shall  we  still  abide 
by  the  Old  Scriptures  of  God  which  have  led  and  blessed  us 
so  long  ?  Whither  are  we  tending  ?  The  Church  of  God  at 
large  looks  to  this  Presbytery  to  give  a  right  answer  to  that 
question  in  bearing  unfaltering  witness  for  the  truth  committed 
to  us. 

The  other  claim  which  Scripture  makes  for  itself  is,  entire 
truthfulness  ( inerrancy ,  if  you  please). 

The  true  biblical  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures 
necessarily  implies  their  infallible  truthfulness.  It  could  not 
be  infallible  if  not  truthful.  Dr.  Briggs  makes  inspiration  refer 
only  to  truths  revealed  to  the  writers  of  the  Bible  by  the  Lord, 
and  to  that  extent  he  would  undoubtedly  make  it  a  guarantee 
for  entire  truthfulness.  He  would  certainly  not  contend  that 
..  God,  in  revealing  truth  to  men,  communicated  error.  But  we 
have  shown  that,  according  to  the  true  doctrine,  inspiration 
extends  to  all  parts  of  the  written  Word,  so  that  God  is  in  a 
true  sense  the  Author  thereof,  and  this  cannot  fail  to  assure  us 
.  of  its  exact  veracity. 

We  would  have  to  change  our  idea  of  God  completely  to  ad¬ 
mit  any  other  supposition.  He  is  the  embodiment  of  truth, 
and  “  is  not  a  man  that  He  should  lie.”  But  it  is  unnecessary 
to  press  this  point  any  further  than  to  insist  that  it  leads  to  a 
strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  perfect  inerrancy  of  the 


5 1 


original  Scriptures.  It  is  a  presumption  so  strong  that  the 
contrary  must  be  clearly  shown  before  it  can  be  abandoned. 

But  it  is  urged  that  the  Scripture  does  not  claim  inerrancy 
for  itself.  It  would  be  more  correct  to  say  that  it  does  not 
make  the  direct  claim  very  prominent.  It  affirms  it  often 
enough  to  be  quite  effective. 

If  we  should  have  an  asseveration  of  perfect  truthfulness  at 
every  verse  or  chapter,  it  might  raise  a  suspicion  of  untruthful¬ 
ness,  since  no  one  is  less  likely  to  be  truthful  than  one  who  is 
constantly  affirming  it  of  himself.  The  Scripture  claims  to  be, 
as  the  word  of  God,  the  “Scripture  of  truth,”  working  effect¬ 
ually  to  salvation  in  them  that  believe,  which  could  not  be 
affirmed  of  error  in  any  conceivable  way.  God’s  command¬ 
ments  are  “  sure  ”  ;  His  law  is  “  the  truth  ”  ;  His  “word  is  true 
from  the  beginning  ”  ;  not  one  jot  or  tittle  of  it  shall  fail,  but 
everything  is  to  be  fulfilled;  the  record  of  Scripture  is  made 
with  such  painstaking  veracity  that  it  gives  us  infallible  cer¬ 
tainty,  so  that  whatever  is  written  in  the  law  and  the  prophets 
may  be  surely  believed. 

But  the  Bible  makes  a  still  higher  claim  for  itself  than  simple 
truthfulness.  A  truthful  statement  may  be  an  imperfect  one, 
since  completeness  of  statement  is  not  necessary  to  truthful¬ 
ness.  But  the  Word  of  God  claims  perfection  for  itself,  and  a 
perfection  which  reaches  far  beyond  the  utmost  human  perfec¬ 
tion  and  which  has  been  established  by  its  trial.  And  when 
we  remember  that  it  has  a  breadth  and  depth  so  vast  that  the 
most  profound  Christian  scholars,  after  devoting  to  it  a  life¬ 
time  of  reverent,  patient  study,  feel  themselves  only  in  the 
border-land  of  its  inexhaustible  wealth  of  divine  truth,  who 
will  deny  that  this  claim  to  perfection  is  well  founded  ?  How¬ 
ever,  I  am  arguing  simply  for  the  entire  truthfulness  of  the 
Divine  Word,  which  certainly  derives  strong  support  from  its 
claim  to  perfection.  But  this  characteristic  of  strict  veracity, 
in  all  things,  appears  in  the  Scriptures  far  more  clearly  and 
foicibiy  in  incidental  ways  than  in  direct  affirmation. 

It  is  stated  that  “  whatsoever  things  were  written  aforetime 
were  written  for  our  learning,  that  we,  through  patience  and 


52 


comfort  of  the  Scripture,  might  have  hope.”  *  But  error  can  in¬ 
duce  neither  patience  nor  comfort,  and  will  surely  blast  every 
hope  built  on  it.  He  only  who  builds  his  hope  on  God  s  in- 
errant  Word  shall  never  come  to  shame. 

But  further,  the  entire  truthfulness  of  Scripture  is  everywhere 
assumed  on  its  pages,  so  that  most  important  conclusions  aie 
reached  from  it  with  absolute  certainty.  From  the  single 
word  “whosoever,”  used  by  the  Prophet  Joei,  Paul  elaborately 
argues  that  there  is  no  difference  between  Jew  and  Gentile, 
from  the  word  “every”  in  the  verse,  “As  I  live,  saith  the 
Lord,  every  knee  shall  bow  to  me,”  it  is  solemnly  affirmed  in 
Rom.  xiv.  ii,  “  We  shall  all  stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of 
Christ”;  in  arguing  that  eternal  life  is  not  given  for  human 
merit,  but  is  received  by  faith  alone,  in  Gal.  iii.  16  the  Apostle 
makes  the  argument  turn  on  the  fact  that  the  woid  seed  is 
used  in  the  singular  instead  of  the  plural;  in  Heb.  xii.  27,  the 
immutability  of  the  Gospel  Kingdom  is  affirmed  on  the  basis 
of  the  adverbial  phrase  “once  more,”  used  by  Haggai;  and  in 
John  x.  35,  Christ  makes  an  argument  on  the  inviolability  of  a 
single  word  of  Scripture,  which  cannot  be  broken.  But  it  is 
not  necessary  further  to  pursue  this  train  of  thought.  A  large 
number  of  additional  places  can  be  indicated  where  the  minute 
truthfulness  of  Scripture  is  thus  assumed  and  the  most  impor¬ 
tant  inferences  drawn  from  it. 

But  the  Scriptures  are  a  communication  from  God;  they 
bring  us  light  and  truth  on  the  questions  of  salvation  and  eter¬ 
nal  life  which  nature  and  reason  cannot  impart;  they  speak  to 
us  with  the  authority  of  God,  and  demand  our  belief  as  faith¬ 
ful  sayings  worthy  of  all  acceptation;  everything  written  was 
intended  to  induce  our  belief;  and  so  strongly  do  they  urge 
their  claims  to  be  implicitly  believed,  that  they  declare  the 
absence  of  a  belief  in  them  to  be  a  sin  which  the  Lord  will 
punish  severely.  The  Jews  were  declared  guilty  by  Christ  for 
the  reason  that  they  did  not  believe  what  Moses  had  written. 
Unbelief  is,  in  fact,  the  greatest  sin,  since  it  impeaches  the 


*  Rom.  xv.  4. 


53 


truthfulness  of  God,  in  refusing  to  credit  the  record  which  He 
has  given  us  in  the  Word  concerning  His  Son. 

Now,  all  this  would  simply  be  preposterous  if  the  Word 
of  God  were  mixed  with  human  errors  in  Scripture  as  Dr. 
Briggs  affirms. 

The  character  which  the  Word  of  God  gives  to  itself,  and 
the  solemn  claims  it  makes  upon  us  for  implicit  belief,  are  con¬ 
sistent  with  nothing  else  than  its  absolute  truthfulness.  Thus 
only  it  is  possible  that  “  man  shall  live  by  every  word  that  pro- 
ceedeth  out  of  the  mouth  of  God,”  by  which  our  Saviour  meant 
the  written  Scripture.  And  in  this  connection  it  is  well  to  no¬ 
tice,  as  a  most  eloquent  testimony  to  the  literal  and  complete 
inspiration  of  the  written  Word  of  God,  that  whenever  men 
have  taken  this  book  and  have  spoken  from  it  with  a  “thus 
saith  the  Lord,”  they  have  touched  the  consciences  of  men,  led 
them  in  faith  and  repentance  to  the  Saviour,  turned  the  world 
upside  down,  banished  innumerable  wrongs  and  falsehoods,  and 
renewed  human  society  in  a  life  of  moral  and  spiritual  beauty. 

We  thus  see  that  the  Scripture  bears  ample  testimony  to  the 
received  doctrine  of  its  own  complete  inspiration  as  the  Word 
of  God  written,  and  its  entire  truthfulness. 

It  is  this  scriptural  doctrine,  believed  and  revered  by  the 
devout  people  of  Christ,  which  Dr.  Briggs  squarely  contradicts. 
He  throws  it  aside,  and  gives  us  another  entirely  different  doc¬ 
trine,  according  to  which  the  written  Word  is  not  inspired,  and 
cannot  be  an  infallible  guide.  He  tries  to  justify  himself  by 
asserting  that  the  doctrine  of  inspiration  as  now  held  by  the 
Church,  and  as  we  have  defined  it,  is  comparatively  modern,  a 
perversion  of  the  true  doctrine  which  has  never  been  held  by 
the  historic  Church  of  Christ,  and  particularly  not  by  the  West¬ 
minster  divines. 

Canon  Westcott  has,  with  painstaking  care,  collated  a  large 
amount  of  testimony  which  proves  conclusively  that  during  the 
early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  no  other  doctrine  was  held 
in  the  Christian  Church.*  Professor  Henry  B.  Smith  has  called 


*  Introduction  to  the  Study  of  the  Gospels,  Appendix  B. 


54 


v 


attention  to  the  fact  that  for  more  than  1,600  years  it  was  ques¬ 
tioned  only  by  a  few  individuals."* 

And  in  modern  times  it  has  been  the  unshaken  faith  of  the 
entire  Protestant  Evangelical  Church,  whose  great  divines 
have  ably  defended  it,  showing  that  such  difficulties  as  we  find 
in  our  copies  of  the  Scriptures  could  be  explained  in  entire 
consistency  with  their  full  inspiration,  infallible  authority  and 
perfect  truthfulness.  And  the  present  trouble  has  its  origin  in 
the  fact  that  men  of  rationalistic  tendencies  would  surrender 
this  vital  citadel  to  the  enemy  without  its  being  conquered. 
Against  this  infidelity  to  the  old  faith  and  to  the  precious 
truths  committed  to  us,  the  great  body  of  our  Church  protests. 
It  is  not  our  accepted  view  of  inspiration,  but  that  put  forward 
by  Dr.  Briggs,  which  is  the  new  and  modern  one.  He  asserts 
that  the  Reformers  conceded  the  presence  of  errors  in  the  origi¬ 
nal  Scriptures,  but  he  has  not  given  a  single  good  proof  of 
that  remarkable  statement.  And  it  certainly  requires  the  clear¬ 
est  proof  to  induce  us  to  believe  that  those  men,  who  held  to 
the  strictest  view  of  verbal  inspiration,  taught  °lhat  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  had  come  from  the  hand  of  God  with  errors  .in  them. 

The  case  of  Luther  proves  the  contradictory  of  this  We 
'know  that,  owing  to  his  views  on  justification  by  faith,  he 
had  at  first  some  difficulty  in  admitting  certain  books  into  the 
canon  of  Scripture.  On  clearer  light  these  difficulties  dis¬ 
appeared  from  his  mind. 

In  “  The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,"  a  book  which 
Dr.  Briggs  has  put  in  evidence,  he  gives  three  extracts  from 
Luther’s  works  and  one  from  DeWette,  to  show  that  Luther 
admitted  that  there  are  errors  in  the  original  autographs  of 
Scripture.  But  those  citations  prove  no  such  thing,  as  any  one 
may  learn  from  a  careful  perusal  of  them.  In  the  first  three  quo¬ 
tations  it  is  plain  that  Luther  was  laboring  to  harmonize  diffi¬ 
culties,  and  the  last  one  of  the  three  suggests  the  way  in 
which  harmony  might  be  reached.  In  the  extract  from  De- 
Wette’s  collection  of  letters,  Luther  merely  declares  that  he  is 


*  Sermon  on  Inspiration. 


55 


not  satisfied  with  some  one’s  explanation  of  the  Scripture  dif¬ 
ficulty  named;  but  he  does  not  say  that  he  despaired  of  find¬ 
ing  a  harmony. 

It  will  scarcely  be  possible  to  show  from  Luther’s  extended 
writings  that  he  ever  doubted  the  literal  inspiration  and  the 
entire  truthfulness  of  the  written  Word  of  God  in  the  canoni¬ 
cal  books  of  Scripture.  He  was  a  great  stickler  for  the  literal 
correctness  and  absolute  authority  of  the  very  words  of  Scrip¬ 
ture,  as  the  following  extracts  from  his  writings  will  abundantly 
show. 

Luther  calls  the  Bible  “  God’s  letters,”  and  accuses  the  Pope 
of  a  desire  to  destroy  them.  *  He  says:  “It  is  the  ivord  of 
truth ,  or  the  true  word."  + 

Speaking  of  those  who  affirm  that  the  Word  of  God  cannot 
be  true  for  the  reason  that  many  who  hear  it  do  not  believe  it, 
and  are  not  made  godly  by  it,  Luther  says:  “  Then  we  are  to 
judge  the  Word  of  God  by  the  hallowed  effects  it  may  have  on 
those  who  hear  it.  But  the  Word  of  God  is  absolutely  true, 
even  if  all  who  hear  it  should  not  believe  on  it.  They  will 
know  it  at  the  last  day.”  J 

“Thy  word  is  very  true,  therefore  it  admits  of  no  addition 
from  human  teaching.”  § 

“  The  Word  of  God,  which  is  in  itself  perfect,  must  for  that 
reason  not  be  changed.”  || 

“  Holy  men  have  erred  in  their  writings,  and  sinned  in  their 
lives,  but  the  Scriptures  cannot  err.”^[ 

“  It  is  impossible  to  fathom  and  to  explore  to  its  depth  a 
single  word  of  the  Holy  Scripture.  It  bids  defiance  to  all 
scholars  and  theologians.  For  the  words  of  the  Scripture  are 
the  words  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and,  therefore,  they  are  too  high 
for  all  men.”  ** 

*  History  of  the  Reformation,  by  D’Aubigne.  Vol.  ii.  p.  229. 

\  Plochmann  and  Irmischer.  Vol.  viii.  p.  134. 

\  Plochmann  and  Irmischer.  Vol.  xliv.  p.  165. 

§Walch.  Vol.  v.  p.  1838. 

||  Plochmann  and  Irmischer.  Vol.  lvii.  p.  66. 

Plochmann  and  Irmischer.  Vol.  xxviii.  p.  33. 

**  Plochmann  and  Irmischer.  Vol.  lvii.  p.  13. 


t 


5 6 


“  The  Bible  is  God’s  Word  and  Book.”  The  creation  is,  and 
remains  as  it  is  written  in  Scripture,  and  notwithstanding  all 
the  attempts  of  its  enemies  to  destroy  it,  “  the  Book  has  ever¬ 
more  remained  fixed  and  altogether  perfect  as  it  was  written.”* * * § 
“  I  will  have  nothing  but  the  Word  of  God,  and  do  not  ask 
for  wonders  and  visions;  nor  will  I  believe  an  angel  if  he  should 
teach  me  contrary  to  the  Word  of  God.  I  believe  the  words 
and  works  of  God  alone;  for  the  Word  of  God  has  been  true 
from  the  beginning,  and  has  never  failed.  I  know  from  prac¬ 
tical  experience  that  everything  occurs  as  it  is  written  in  the 
Word  of  God.”  + 

Speaking  in  defence  of  his  position  to  Chancellor  Wehe, 
Luther  said  :  “I  will  never  allow  any  man  to  set  himself 
above  the  word  of  God.  ...  I  can  endure  everything,  but 
I  cannot  abandon  the  Holy  Scripture.  ...  I  would  rather 
lose  my  life — rather  have  my  arms  and  legs  cut  off,  than  for¬ 
sake  the  clear  and  true  word  of  God.”  £ 

i(  The  Bible  or  Scripture,  is  not  such  a  book  as  originates 
from  reason  or  human  wisdom.  The  arts  of  jurists  and  poets 
are  of  the  reason,  and  can  again  be  understood  and  compre¬ 
hended  by  the  reason.  But  the  teaching  of  Moses  and  the 
propnets  does  not  come  from  reason  nor  from  human  wisdom. 
Therefore,  he  who  attempts  to  comprehend  Moses  and  the 
prophets  by  the  reason,  and  to  measure  and  explain  the 
Scripture  according  to  the  dictates  of  reason,  will  miss  the 
meaning  of  it  altogether.  For  all  heretics,  from  the  beginning, 
have  arisen  from  this  fact,  that  they  have  thought  that  what 
they  read  in  Scripture,  they  could  explain  by  the  light  of 
reason.”  § 

“  Replying  to  those  who  affirmed  that  there  are  contradic¬ 
tions  in  the  Scriptures,  Luther  said  :  “  It  is  impossible  that  the 
Scripture  should  contradict  itself.  Only  ignorant,  coarse,  and 
hardened  hypocrites  think  so.”  But  to  those  who  are  devout 

*  Plochmann  and  Irmischer.  Vol.  Ivii.  p.  2. 

•}  Plochmann  and  Irmischer.  Vol.  Ivii.  p.  45. 

t  History  of  the  Reformation,  byD’  Aubigne,  vol.  ii.,  pp.  283,  284. 

§  Plochmann  and  Irmischer,  Vol.  iii.,  p.  335. 


1 


57 

and  properly  enlightened,  the  Scripture  ‘‘gives  testimony  for 
her  Lord  and  holds  with  Him.  Therefore  you  should  have  a 
care  how  you  compare  and  harmonize  those  texts  of  which 
you  say  that  they  do  not  agree  with  each  other.”  * 

Exhorting  Christians  to  guard  against  the  errors  of  false 
teachers  by  receiving  implicitly  all  that  God  has  revealed  in 
the  Holy  Scripture  and  only  that,  he  stated:  “  For  one  letter, 
yes,  a  single  jot  of  the  Scripture  is  of  more  and  greater  con¬ 
sequence  than  heaven  and  earth.  Therefore  we  cannot  con¬ 
sent  that  the  most  insignificant  part  of  it  should  be  displaced.” f 

Melanchthon,  in  reply  to  Dr.  Eck’s  attack  on  Luther,  defined 
the  great  Reformer’s  position  in  these  words:  “There  is  but 
one  Scripture,  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  pure  and  true 
in  all  things.”  .  .  .  “The  meaning  of  Scripture  is  one  and 

simple  like  heavenly  truth  itself.  It  is  obtained  by  comparing 
Scripture  with  Scripture;  it  is  deduced  from  the  thread  and 
connection  of  the  discourse.  There  is  a  philosophy  that  is  en¬ 
joined  by  us  as  regards  the  divine  Scriptures,  and  that  is,  to 
bring  all  human  opinions  and  maxims  to  it,  as  to  a  touchstone 
by  which  to  try  them.”  {  Luther  testifies  for  an  inerrant  Bible. 

Dr.  Briggs  also  cites  the  great  name  of  John  Calvin  to  up¬ 
hold  him  in  his  views  of  an  errant  Bible.  But  he  meets  here 
with  no  better  success.  The  citations  which  he  gives  do  not 
fasten  such  a  doctrine  of  Scripture  on  the  great  reformer. 

It  is  not  true  that  in  his  notes  on  Matthew  xxvii.  9,  he  charged 
the  Apostle  with  making  a  mistake,  but  says  that  the  name  of 
Jeremiah  “crept  in”  for  that  of  Zechariah,  and  it  must  have 
crept  into  a  copy  of  the  original  correct  version.  In  Acts 
vii.  1 6,  he  does  not  connect  the  name  of  Luke  with  the  mistake 
in  the  name  of  Abraham.  It  is  an  infinitive  construction:  “In 
nomine  Abrahae  erratum  esse  palani  est .”  (“  It  is  well  known 
that  there  is  an  error  in  the  name  of  Abraham.”)  And  the  fact 
that  he  suggests  an  emendation  of  the  text  leads  us  to  infer 
rather  that  in  his  mind  there  was  an  original,  perfect  text,  for 
which  the  imperfect  one  should  be  exchanged. 

In  the  extracts  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  made  from  Calvin’s 

*  Walch,  Vol.  viii.,  p.  2140.  f  Walch,  Vol.  viii.,  p.  2661. 

\  History  of  the  Reformation,  by  D’Aubigne,  Vol.  2,  p.  76. 


5» 


Commentaries  on  Rom.  x.  6  and  Heb.  xi.  21,  Calvin  shows 
that  the  inspired  writer  had  not  in  either  case  violated  the  law 
of  quotation,  but  had  given  the  true  sense  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  passages.  He  even  speaks  of  the  “ pure  and  original  text  ,” 
and  this  shows  that  he  held  the  original  text  to  be  free  from 
error  Calvin  considered  it  wicked  to  charge  a  New  Testa¬ 
ment  writer  with  having  misused  the  Scripture.  Under  Eph. 
iv.  8  he  says:  “  Wicked  men  charge  Paul  with  having  made  an 
unfair  use  of  Scripture."  On  1  Cor  ii.  9,  having  intimated  that 
such  a  charge  comes  from  the  “  calumnies  of  the  wicked,”  he 
states:  “  It  is  further  removed  from  Paul’s  meaning,  on  which 
we  ought  to  place  more  dependence  than  on  any  other  consid¬ 
eration.  For  where  shall  we  find  a  surer  or  more  faithful  in- 
preter  than  the  Spirit  of  God  of  this  authoritative  declaration 
which  He  himself  dictated  to  Isaiah — in  the  exposition  which 
he  has  furnished  by  the  mouth  of  Paul  ?  ” 

But  Calvin’s  views  of  the  origin  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  were 
such  that  it  was  simply  impossible  for  him  ever  to  have  stated 
that  an  inspired  writer  had  made  an  error  in  the  original  au¬ 
tograph.  He  held  that  the  Holy  Spirit  verbally  dictated  the 
Scripture.  He  stated  “  that  the  prophets  did  not  speak  at 
their  own  suggestion,  but  that,  being  organs  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  they  only  uttered  what  they  had  been  commissioned 
from  heaven  to  declare.  The  law  and  the  prophets  are  not  a 
doctrine  delivered  according  to  the  will  of  man,  but  dictated 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.”*  He  affirmed  that  the  New  Testament 
writers  were  inspired  in  the  same  extent  and  degree  as  those 
of  the  Old.fi 

On  2  Pet.  i.  21,  he  states:  “That  the  beginning  of  right 
knowledge  is  to  give  credit  to  the  holy  prophets  which  is  due 
to  God  .  .  .  they  dared  not  to  announce  anything  of  their  own 
and  obediently  followed  the  Spirit  as  their  guide,  who  ruled  in 
their  mouth  as  in  his  own  sanctuaryd’fi  Again  he  uses  these 
words:  “  Whatever  is  delivered  in  Scripture  we  ought  to  learn; 
for  it  were  a  reproach  offered  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  He  has 

*  Commentary  on  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 

f  Commentary,  Rom.  xv.  4. 

%z  Pet.  i.  21,  Commentary. 


59 


taught  anything  which  it  does  not  concern  us  to  know.”  * * * §  He 
held  it  to  be  ciiminal  either  to  add  or  take  away  anything  from 
the  Sacred  Scriptures,  f 

“The  whole  order  of  the  world,”  he  declares,  “  bears  testi¬ 
mony  to  the  steadfastness  of  Gods  Word — that  Wovd  which  is 
most  true.  f  The  Word  of  God  has  been  from  the  beginning 
certain  and  infallible  truth,  and  will  continue  so  even  to  the 
end.”  §  “  The  greatest  human  perfection,”  he  affirms,  “  is  noth¬ 
ing  when  compared  with  God’s  Word,  inasmuch  as  all  other 
things  will  soon  come  to  an  end,  whereas,  the  Word  of  God 
stands  ever  firm  in  its  own  eternity.”  || 

In  his  catechism,  giving  an  answer  to  the  question:  “How 
are  you  to  use  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  order  to  profit  by  it  ?  ”  he 
says.  By  embracing  it  with  entire  heartfelt  persuasion,  as 
certain  truth  come  down  from  heaven.”  IF 

When  for  his  earnest  defence  of  the  Bible  he  was  accused  of 
stirring  up  fiery  contests  about  nothing,  he  said:  “  My  answer 
is,  that  when  divine  truth  is  avowedly  attacked,  we  must  not 
tolerate  the  adulteration  of  one  single  iota  of  it.  It  is  certainly 
no  trivial  matter  to  see  God’s  light  extinguished  by  the  devil’s 
darkness;  and  besides,  this  matter  is  of  greater  moment  than 
many  suppose.”  **  Calvin  held  to  an  inerrant  Bible. 

Now,  inasmuch  as  Calvin  always  uses  language  with  admi¬ 
rable  precision,  any  seemingly  doubtful  statement  of  his  in 
exegesis  must  be  interpreted  in  harmony  with  his  many  posi¬ 
tive  expressions  on  the  literal  inspiration  and  entire  truthful¬ 
ness  of  God’s  written  Word. 

The  French  historian,  Guizot,  had  no  doubt  that  Calvin  held 
to  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture.  He  said:  “  Like  Calvin,  many 
pious  and  learned  men  uphold  the  plenary  inspiration  of  the 
Holy  Scripture;  they  assert  that  not  only  the  thoughts,  but 
the  words  in  which  they  are  clothed  are  divinely  inspired — 
every  word  on  every  subject,  the  language  as  well  as  the  doc¬ 
trine.”  ft 

The  Reformers  could  hold  no  other  view  on  this  question. 
The  Word  of  God  was  to  them  the  sword  of  the  Spirit  and  the 
unfailing  source  of  defence. 

*  Commentary,  Rom.  xv.  4. 

f  Tracts,  vol.  2,  p.  133. 

%  Commentary  on  Ps.  cxix.  89. 

§  Commentary  on  Ps.  cxix.  160. 


I  Commentary  on  Ps.  cxix.  96. 
*T  Tracts,  vol.  3,  p.  82, 

**  Tracts,  vol.  3,  p.  418. 
ft  Life  of  Calvin,  chap.  4. 


6  o 


Dr.  Briggs  himself  says  that  Andrew  Rivetus  was  one  of 
the  most  prominent  divines  of  the  Reformation  period.  He 
cites  him  on  the  question  of  authenticity,  but  the  quotation 
plainly  indicates  what  the  Reformers  held  as  to  inspiration. 
Rivetus’s  words  are:  “This  only  is  to  be  held  as  certain, 
whether  David  or  Moses  or  any  other  composed  the  Psalms, 
they  themselves  were  as  pens,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  wrote 
through  them;  but  it  is  not  necessary  to  trouble  ourselves 
about  the  pens  when  the  true  author  is  established."  * 

Dr.  Briggs  also  seeks  to  fortify  himself  in  his  views  by  af¬ 
firming  that  the  Westminster  divines  did  not  hold  to  that 
plenary  inspiration  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  which  insures  their 
entire  truthfulness.  As  far  as  my  knowledge  extends,  he  is 
the  first  one  to  make  that  assertion.  He  says  it  is  a  modern 
notion  forced  on  the  Church  by  traditionalists  and  evangelicals. 
He  would  have  people  believe  that  we  are  reading  an  opinion 
into  the  Confession  which  the  framers  of  it  never  intended  to 
embody  in  it.  He  stoutly  affirms  that  neither  the  Bible  nor 
any  of  the  Reformed  creeds  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  inerrancy 
of  Scripture,  and  he  is  sure  that  the  Westminster  divines  held 
exactly  the  contrary. 

How  he  can  reiterate  in  his  different  publications  what 
to  me  seems  so  obviously  untrue,  passes  my  comprehen¬ 
sion.  Certainly,  it  has  been  held  for  250  years  that  our 
Confession  taught  at  least  the  plenary  inspiration  and  the 
perfect  veracity  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  presumably  that  is 
what  the  authors  of  it  meant  to  state.  This  will  appear  all 
the  more  probable  from  the  fact,  as  we  shall  soon  show, 
that  they  themselves  held  the  strictest  theory  of  verbal  in¬ 
spiration. 

It  probably  never  occurred  to  them,  when  they  stated 
that  God,  who  is  truth  itself,  is  the  Author  of  the  Scriptures, 
that  He  committed  them  to  writing,  immediately  inspired 
them,  so  that  they  are  the  Word  of  God  written,  and  that 
Scripture  is  to  be  believed  because  it  is  the  Word  of  God, 


*  Biblical  Study,  pp.  167,  16S. 


that  any  one  could  ever  suggest  the  idea  that  they  did  not 
mean  to  teach  the  plenary  inspiration  and  perfect  truthfulness 
of  Scripture. 

Th  ere  were  some  in  the  Westminster  Assembly  who  held 
the  view  that  the  Bible  is  fully  inspired  in  respect  to  faith  and 
morals,  but  contained  errors  in  matters  of  minor  detail,  but 
that  was  a  condemned  minority  opinion,  which  is  of  no  more 
value  in  helping  us  to  construe  the  Confession  of  Faith  than 
minority  opinions  contained  in  the  Federalist  are  authority  to 
show  what  the  framers  of  our  national  constitution  meant  to 
express. 

All  the  controlling  minds  of  the  Assembly,  most  of  their 
like-minded  contemporaries,  and  many  contemporaries  who 
were  not  like-minded — in  fact,  the  great  body  of  the  Evangeli¬ 
cal  Church — believed  the  theory  of  verbal  inspiration,  and  the 
infallible  truthfulness  of  Scripture. 

In  The  Bible ,  the  Churchy  and  the  Reason ,  and  also  in  “  Whith¬ 
er f”  Dr.  Briggs  cites  Samuel  Rutherford  as  one  of  the  West¬ 
minster  divines  “  who  did  not  teach  the  inerrancy  of  the  orig¬ 
inal  autographs.”  But  an  examination  of  his  writings  will 
show  that  that  is  exactly  what  he  did  teach.  In  arguing  with 
John  Goodwin,  who  was  not  willing  to  call  copies  and  transla¬ 
tions  of  the  Bible  the  Word  of  God,  Rutherford  came  near 
claiming  inerrancy  for  the  translation,  stating:  “  For  though 
scribes,  translators,  grammarians  and  printers,  may  all  err,  it 
followeth  not  that  an  unerring  Providence  of  Him  that  hath 
seven  eyes  hath  not  delivered  to  the  Church  the  Scriptures 
containing  the  infallible  truth  of  God.” 

Rutherford  regarded  the  whole  Scripture  in  the  originals  to 
be  “the  infallible  Word  of  God,”  written  by  “prophets  who 
cannot  err.”  Indeed,  he  looked  on  the  language  of  Scripture 
as  spoken  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  so  that  “  if  any  one  should  say  ” 
anything  contrary  to  a  Scripture  statement,  he  would  “con¬ 
tradict  the  Holy  Ghost.”  He  said:  “We  believe  all  things 
written,  be  they  fundamental  or  no,  for  God  hath  written  them 
all  for  us.”  “  The  Word  of  God  is  full  of  divinity  .  .  .  and 
certainty.”  “We  have  a  more  sure  word  of  prophecy,  the 


02 


Scriptures,  yea,  surer  than  the  Father’s  voice  from  heaven, 
which  was  an  immediate  oracle,  indeed.”* 

It  is  evident  also  that  John  Goodwin,  his  antagonist,  himself 
held  the  same  high  views  on  the  inspiration  of  the  autographs 
of  Scripture  as  Rutherford  did. 

Goodwin  himself  stated:  “  I  never  denied,  but  have  a  thou¬ 
sand  times  over  affirmed,  and  by  many  arguments  and  demon¬ 
strations  evinced  the  Scriptures  to  be  the  Word  of  God.  .  .  . 
But  in  exactness  of  speaking  the  English  translation  is  not  the 
Word  of  God.”  f 

d  he  case  of  Richard  Capel  is  precisely  similar  to  that  of 
Rutherford.  He  was  chiding  those  who  were  making  so  much 
of  the  uncertainties  and  errors  which  had  come  into  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  through  the  fallibilities  of  scribes  and  translators,  saying, 
“  These  be  terrible  blasts,  and  do  little  else  when  they  meet 
with  a  weak  head  and  heart  but  to  open  the  door  to  atheism, 
and  quite  to  fling  off  the  bridle,  which  only  can  hold  them 
and  us  in  the  ways  of  truth  and  piety :  this  is  to  fill  the  con¬ 
ceits  ol  men  with  evil  thoughts  against  the  purity  of  the 
originals .” 

“  It  ls  granted,”  he  says,  “that  translators  were  not  led  by 
such  an  infallible  Spirit  as  the  Prophets  and  Apostles  were.” 

Translators  and  transcribers  might  err ,  being  not  endued 
with  that  infallible  Spirit  in  translating  and  transcribing,  as 
Moses  and  the  Prophets  were  in  their  original  writings!'  To 
him,  then,  the  originals  were  “the  dictates  of  the  Spirit,”  and 
their  writers,  being  imbued  with  the  infallible  spirit,  might  not 
err.  X 

William  Lyford  is  another  witness  whom  Dr.  Briggs  cites  for 
the  errancy  of  Scripture.  But  Lyford  was  far  from  intending 
anything  of  the  kind.  His  contention  was  that  the  Word  of 
God  was  competently  conveyed  in  the  English  translation,  but 
ho  states  explicitly  that  the  difference  between  the  originals 

•  A  free  Disputation  against  Pretenses  of  Liberty  of  Conscience,  pp.  370, 
37i.  353.  354,  373,  366,  193. 
f  The  Divine  Authority  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  8. 

X  Remains,  pp.  12,  38,  43,  48. 


^3 


and  translations  arises  from  the  fact  that  “  the  translators 
were  not  assisted  immediately  by  the  Holy  Ghost,”  while 
“  such  extraordinary  assistance  is  needful  to  one  that  shall  in¬ 
dite  any  part  of  Scripture.”  “  The  Divine  Truth  is  perfectly, 
immediately  and  most  absolutely  in  the  original  Hebrew  and 
Greek.”  * 

Matthew  Pool  and  John  Ball  merely  denied  that  the  verbal 
inspiration  of  Scripture  can  be  proved  by  the  testimony  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  heart,  a  statement  which  no  one  will  deny. 

But  they  must  have  held  that  it  could  be  established  in  an¬ 
other  way  since  they  both  believed  in  it. 

For  John  Ball  states  in  his  Catechism: 

Q.  What  call  you  the  Word  of  God  ? 

A.  The  Holy  Scriptures  immediately  inspired,  which  are 
contained  in  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments. 

Q.  What  is  it  to  be  immediately  inspired  ? 

A.  To  be  immediately  inspired  is  to  be  as  it  were  breathed, 
and  to  come  from  the  Father  by  the  Holy  Ghost  without  all 
means.  (Here  we  have  the  meaning  of  the  word  “imme¬ 
diately  as  used  by  the  Westminster  Divines  in  connection 
with  inspiration.) 

Q.  Were  the  Scriptures  thus  inspired  ? 

A.  Thus  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  originals  were  inspired, 
both  for  matter  and  words. 

Q.  Is  it  expedient  to  know  that  these  books  are  the  word 
of  God  ? 

A.  It  is  very  expedient  and  necessary  that  all  Christians  of 
age  and  discretion  should  know  that  the  Scriptures  are  the 
very  word  of  God. 

Q •  What  is  it  to  know  them  to  be  the  word  of  God  ? 

A.  It  is  to  know  them  to  be  the  immediate  and  infallible 
truth  of  God  that  is  to  be  received,  obeyed  and  believed,  f 


*  Plain  Man’s  Sense  Exercised,  pp.  49,  50. 

f  A  Short  Treatise  Containing  all  the  Principal  Grounds  of  the  Christian 
Religion,  pp.  5,  6,  7,  8,  9,  10. 


6\ 


And  Matthew  Pool,  who  was  the  great  Presbyterian  critic  of 
the  Scripture  in  the  i;th  century,  has  given  this  clear  state¬ 
ment  of  his  views  on  the  subject:  “  The  writers  of  the  Bible 
were  the  special  instruments  of  the  Holy  Ghost  who  sanctified 
them  to  the  work  of  preaching  and  penning  what  He  dictated 
to  them.  *  “  The  Word  of  God  is  without  the  least  mixture 

of  any  falsehood  or  sin,  both  which  are  frequent  in  the  works 
and  precepts  of  men.”  + 

Dr.  Briggs  also  calls  in  Richard  Baxter  to  testify  in  favor 
of  the  view  that  inspiration  does  not  rule  errors  out  of  Scrip¬ 
ture.  Baxter  was  not  a  member  of  the  Westminster  Assembly, 
but  was  alike-minded  contemporary,  a  man  of  a  broad  and 
well-balanced  mind,  a  great  scholar  and  a  warm-hearted  Chris¬ 
tian.  He  is  a  witness  of  the  highest  order. 

The  quotations  given  in  The  Bible ,  the  Church ,  and  the 
Reason ,  and  in  “  Whither ,”  do  not  prove  the  point,  and 
Baxter  has  expressed  himself  so  unequivocally  in  the  matter 
that  .there  is  really  no  excuse  for  misunderstanding  him. 
In  his  treatise  on  the  Reasons  of  the  Christian  Religion,  he 
states  the  objection :  “  The  Scripture  hath  many  contradictions 
in  it,  in  point  of  history,  chronology  and  other  things;  there- 
foie  it  is  not  the  Word  of  God.”  To  which  he  replies:  “Noth¬ 
ing  but  ignorance  maketh  men  think  so;  understand  once  the 
true  meaning,  and  allow  for  the  errors  of  printers,  transcribers 
and  translators,  and  there  will  no  such  thing  be  found.  Young 
students  in  all  sciences  think  their  books  are  full  of  contradic¬ 
tions,  which  they  can  easily  reconcile  when  they  come  to  un¬ 
derstand  them.”  He  then  states  that  there  were  two  opinions 
on  the  subject  of  inspiration:  One  was  to  the  effect  that  inspira¬ 
tion  secures  the  truthfulness  of  the  writers  of  the  Bible  in  all 
matters  of  faith  and  salvation,  but  not  in  every  word  of  chrono¬ 
logical  and  historical  narration. 


*  Pool’s  Commentary,  i  Pet.  i.  21. 
f  Pool  s  Commentary,  Psalm  cxix.  140. 


65 

r 

This  view  he  discards,  and  gives  as  his  own  that  which  he 
declares  to  be  the  true  doctrine,  namely:  “  That  the  Scriptures 
are  so  entirely  and  perfectly  the  product  of  the  Spirit’s  inspira¬ 
tion  that  there  is  no  word  in  them  which  is  not  infallibly  true.” 

“  I  think,”  he  said,  “  that  no  one  error  or  contradiction  in  any 
matter  can  be  proved  in  the  Scripture He  did  indeed  state 
that  he  could  “  prove  the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion  with¬ 
out  assuming  the  freedom  of  the  Scripture  from  all  error;  ”  yet 
he  “  doubted  not  to  prove  this  their  perfection  against  all  the 
cavils  of  infidels. ”f 

Chillingworth,  in  his  discussion  with  the  Roman  Catholics, 
makes  it  plain  that  they  also  held  to  the  complete  inspiration 
and  truthfulness  of  the  Bible,  but  they  contended  that  the 
Scripture  was  not  sufficient,  but  needed  to  be  supplemented 
by  an  “  unwritten  word  of  God ”  coming  through  tradition  or 
the  Church.  Chillingworth  accepted  the  following  words,  put 
in  his  mouth  by  his  Romanist  antagonist,  that  “  every  book, 
chapter,  and  text  of  Scripture  is  infallible,  and  wants  no  due 
perfection,”  but  argued  that  the  entire  Canonical  Scripture  only 
was  the  perfect  rule  of  faith,  and  that  this  Scripture,  as  “the 
Word  of  God  Written,”  was  in  every  way  sufficient  for  man’s 
needs. J  And  this  shows  us  how  that  expression,  “the  Word 
of  God  Written,”  came  to  be  incorporated  in  our  Confession, 
and  what  the  framers  of  it  meant  by  it. 

In  their  view  the  terms  “  Scripture  ”  and  “Word  of  God” 
were  synonymous.  By  the  statement  of  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
“  the  Word  of  God  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures,”  they 
intended  to  rule  out  the  Roman  Catholic  idea  that  there  was 
also  a  word  of  God  in  the  Church  and  Tradition,  and  it  is 
therefore  identical  with  the  confessional  statement,  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  are  “  the  Word  of  God  written.” 


*  Baxter’s  Works,  London,  Vol.  21,  pp.  347,  34S. 
f  Baxter’s  Works,  Vol.  20,  p.  118. 
f  Chillingworth’s  Works,  London,  Vol.  1,  p.  205. 


66 


And  when  Dr.  Briggs  insists,  in  the  interest  of  an  errant 
Bible,  that  our  Standards  teach  that  there  are  other  things 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  in  addition  to  the  Word  of  God,  he 
endeavors  to  force  into  them  a  meaning  which  the  framers  of 
them  had  not  the  remotest  intention  to  express. 

Dr.  Henry  Hammond,  author  of  the  “  Paraphrase  and  An¬ 
notation  of  the  New  Testament,”  was  named  to  be  one  of  the 
Westminster  divines,  but  never  sat  with  them.  He  was  a 
royalist  and  considered  to  be  an  Arminian  in  his  theological 
views.  He  was  therefore  not  a  like-minded  contemporary. 
That  he  exerted  a  wide  influence  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
a  catechism  which  he  published,  reached  its  16th  edition.  His 
views  on  inspiration  may  be  gathered  from  the  following  com¬ 
ment  on  2  Pet.  i.  21  :  “For  none  of  the  prophets  of  any  time 
have  undertaken  that  office  on  their  own  head,  and  prophesied 
their  own  fancies,  or  persuasions,  but  all  the  Scripture  prophets 
have  been  called  and  sent  by  God  on  his  messages,  and  in¬ 
spired  and  instructed  by  the  Holy  Spirit  of  God  every  word 
which  they  delivered.” 

John  White,  one  of  the  most  active  members  of  the  West¬ 
minster  Assembly,  holding  the  place  of  one  of  the  two  assess¬ 
ors,  and  exerting  an  influence  in  shaping  the  decisions  of  the 
Assembly,  second  to  none,  may  be  regarded  as  a  thoroughly 
fair  exponent' of  the  doctrines  then  prevailing.  On  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  inspiration,  he  made  this  statement  :  “  Yea,  beyond  all 
this,  the  Holy  Ghost  not  only  suggested  unto  them  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  the  doctrine  which  they  were  to  deliver  .and  leave 
upon  record  unto  the  Church  (for  so  far  he  usually  assists  faith¬ 
ful  ministers  in  dispensing  the  Word  in  the  course  of  their 
Gospel  ministry),  but  besides,  has  supplied  unto  them  the  very 
phrases,  method,  and  whole  order  of  those  things  that  are 
written  in  the  Scriptures,  whereas,  he  leaves  ministers  in 
preaching  the  Word  to  the  choice  of  their  own  phrases  and  ex¬ 
pressions,  wherein,  as  also  in  some  particulars  which  they  de¬ 
liver,  they  may  be  mistaken.  .  .  .  Thus,  then,  the  Holy 


6y 


'Ghost  not  only  assisted  holy  men  in  penning  the  Scripture,  but, 
in  a  sort,  took  the  work  out  of  their  hands,  making  use  of  noth¬ 
ing  in  the  men  but  of  their  understanding,  to  receive  and  com¬ 
prehend,  their  wills  to  consent  unto,  and  their  hands  to  write 
down  that  which  they  delivered.”  * 

John  Lightfoot,  of  Ashley,  besides  being  one  of  the  most 
honored  and  influential  members  of  the  Westminster  Assem¬ 
bly,  was  also  an  oriental  and  biblical  scholar  of  considerable 
note.  He  is  a  good  witness,  and  the  last  one  to  whom  I  will 
refer. 

In  his  sermon  on  the  “  Difficulties  of  Scripture,  ’  he  said: 

“  The  Holy  Ghost  hath  purposely  penned  the  Scripture  so 
as  to  challenge  all  serious  study  of  them. 

“  Peter  tells  that  there  are  divers  things  in  Paul’s  epistles 
hard  to  be  understood;  and  why  did  the  Holy  Ghost  dictate 
them  so  hard  by  Paul  ?  And  why  did  not  Peter  explain  them 
who  had  the  same  Spirit  ?  Because  the  Holy  Ghost  hath 
penned  the  Scripture  so  as  to  challenge  all  serious  study.  He 
could  have  penned  all  so  plain  that  he  that  runneth  might  have 
read  them;  but  he  hath  penned  them  in  such  a  style,  that  he 
that  will  read  them  must  not  run  and  read,  but  sit  down  and 
studv.’f 

“  It  became  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  penner  of  Scripture,  to 
write  in  majesty,  that  the  wits  and  wisdom  of  all  the  men  in 
’the  world  should  bow  before  it.”  J 

“  The  Scripture  is  delivered  to  us  so,  as  we  are  rather  deliv¬ 
ered  up  to  Scripture.  .  .  .  We  are  delivered  up  to  Scrip¬ 

tures  as  they  are  to  be  our  Masters,  and  not  we  theirs.  As 
another  Apostle’s  expression  is:  “We  are  to  be  doers  of  the 


*  Directions  for  the  Profitable  Reading  of  the  Scriptures,  p.  61. 
f  Works  of  John  Lightfoot,  Vol.  7,  p.  208. 


\  Vol.  7,  P,  212. 


68 


law  and  not  judges;  to  be  students  of  Scripture,  and  not  their 

•  1  _  mas. 

judges.  * 

“Ye  know  who  say:  ‘  I  will  not  believe  the  Scripture  of  them¬ 
selves,  unless  they  could  show  me  their  own  authority.’  . 
Let  them  choose,  whether  they  will  believe  it  or  no,  may  God 
say,  but  at  their  own  peril.  He  never  intended  to  satisfy  ev¬ 
ery  man’s  curiosity  and  crossness  and  cavilling,  but  he  hath 
given  the  Scripture  in  authority  and  majesty,  and  if  men  will 
bow  and  submit  to  it,  well  and  good;  and  if  not,  let  them  see 
how  they  will  answer  it  another  day.”t 

Thus  it  is  conclusively  shown  what  was  the  predominating 
opinion  among  the  divines  of  the  Westminster  Assembly  on 
this  doctrine  respecting  the  Holy  Scriptures.  With  them  in¬ 
spiration  meant  verbal  dictation  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  in 
view  of  that,  it  is  inconceivable  that  they  should  have  expressed 
in  the  Confession  Dr.  Briggs’s  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture. 
That  doctrine  they  vigorously  combated.  And,  while  this 
opinion  can  have  no  possible  binding  force  on  our  belief,  it 
shows  that  if  our  standards  are  to  be  understood  in  their  his¬ 
torical  sense,  a  much  stricter  meaning  must  be  given  to  their 
statements  on  inspiration  than  is  here  insisted  on.  When  our 
standards  were  framed  the  Church  believed  in  the  infallible 
truthfulness  of  every  word  of  Scripture,  for  the  reason  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  was  the  author  of  it. 

Of  far  greater  importance  to  us  than  the  opinions  of  the 
Westminster  divines  on  this  question,  are  the  views  of  our 
American  divines. 

The  citations  I  have  made  from  the  writings  of  Dr.  Henry 
B.  Smith  fairly  represent  the  view  which  has  been  held  from 
the  beginning  in  the  American  Presbyterian  Church  on  the 
doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture. 

All  the  evangelical  churches  in  the  United  States,  indeed, 
have,  without  exception,  until  very  recent  times,  avowed  their 


*  Vol.  7,  p.  213. 
t  Vol.  7,  p.  213. 


6g 


faith  in  the  complete  inspiration  and  the  entire  truthfulness  of 
the  written  Word  of  God.  President  Timothy  Dwight,  speak¬ 
ing  at  the  beginning  of  the  present  century,  voiced  the  com¬ 
mon  sentiment  of  American  Christians  when  he  said:  “  What¬ 
ever  else  may  be  false,  all  that  God  has  declared  is  true;  and 
it  is  to  he  received  implicitly,  by  whatever  human  opinions  it 
may  be  opposed.  .  .  ‘  Let  God  be  true,  but  every  man 

a  liar.’  Acknowledge  His  truth  by  giving  implicit  credit  to  His 
declarations.  To  believe  a  scriptural  doctrine  which  we  can 
explain,  is  not  to  confide  in  the  veracity  of  God,  but  in  our 
own  explanation.  This  is  not  the  evidence  on  which  He 
originally  requires  us  to  believe.  He  demands  that  we  give 
credit  to  His  veracity,  and  that  absolutely  without  reserve  or 
qualification.  If  this  be  not  done  by  us,  our  faith  is  radically 
defective.  All  the  declarations  of  God  in  Scripture  are  to  be 
implicitly  received ,  and  they  are  to  be  received  in  their  obvious 
meaning .”  * 

But  this  has  particularly  been  the  doctrine  held  by  Ameri¬ 
can  Presbyterians,  as  the  following  excerpts  from  the  works  of 
a  few  of  our  leading  divines  will  conclusively  show.  They  be¬ 
lieved  it  so  thoroughly  that  they  took  it  for  granted  in  all  their 
sermons  and  writings. 

Dr.  Jonathan  Dickinson  was  born  toward  the  close  of  the 
17th  Century.  He  was  one  of  the  principal  founders  of  the 
College  of  New  Jersey,  a  staunch  defender  of  the  Calvinistic 
faith,  and  being  in  his  prime  when  our  Standards  were  first 
adopted  in  1729,  he  took  a  leading  part  in  shaping  the  affairs 
of  our  Church  at  that  time.  Inheriting  an  intense  love  of 
liberty  from  his  New  England  ancestry,  he  was  opposed  to  as¬ 
signing  the  highest  authority  to  statements  of  doctrine  by 
“  uninspired  mend  and  therefore  exerted  himself  to  make  our 
Standards  as  broad  as  would  be  consistent  with  the  truth  of 
God's  Word.  But  he  recognized  clearly  the  authority  which 


*  Dwight’s  Sermons,  Vol.  I.  pp.  27,  44. 


7o 


1 

attached  to  the  writings  of  inspired  men;  and  his  words  on  the 
doctrine  of  Scripture  express  the  belief  of  the  Presbyterians  of 
his  day.  He  said:  “The  blessed  book  of  God  contains  the 
immediate  dictates  of  the  Holy  Ghost — 2  Tim.  iii.  1 6.  What- 
soever,  therefore,  is  written  in  the  divine  oracles,  is  witnessed 
by  the  Spirit  himself;  for  He  is  the  Author  of  them.  And  we 
must  receive  nothing  as  the  witness  of  the  Spirit ,  which  is  not 
agreeable  to  this  sure  and  infallible  standard  and  only  suf¬ 
ficient  rule  of  faith  and  practice."  * * * § 

President  Samuel  Davies,  a  little  later  in  the  i8th  Century, 
contended  that  the  statements  of  the  Word  of  God  were  “the 
authentic  declaration  of  Eternal  Truth,"  on  which  alone  a  Chris¬ 
tian  should  build  his  hope,  since  “  the  declarations  of  that 
Holy  Word  alone  give  us  certain  information;  "  and  that  “  both 
the  divinity  and  truth  of  Scripture  ”  could  be  conclusively  estab¬ 
lished  by  the  combined  forces  of  “intrinsic  and  extrinsic  evi¬ 
dence. "t 

President  Jonathan  Edwards  also  expressed  himself  clearly 
and  fully  on  this  important  question.  He  affirmed  that  matters 
of  faith  and  morals  and  the  historical  narratives  were  alike 
from  the  Spirit  of  God.J 

“  God,”  he  said,  “  hath  not  left  us  to  an  uncertain  guide;  but 
hath  Himself  given  us  a  revelation  of  the  truth  in  these  mat¬ 
ters,  and  hath  done  very  great  things  to  convey  and  confirm 
to  us  this  revelation;  raising  up  many  prophets  in  different 
ages,  immediately  inspiring  them  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and 
confirming  their  doctrine  with  innumerable  miracles  or  won¬ 
derful  works  out  of  the  established  course  of  nature,  vea,  he 
raised  up  a  succession  of  prophets  which  were  upheld  for  sev¬ 
eral  ages.  By  means  of  all,  God  hath  given  us  a  book  of  di¬ 
vine  instruction,  which  is  the  sum  of  divinity. ”§ 

He  further  states:  “  The  spirit  of  error  does  not  desire  to 

*  Sermons  and  Tracts,  by  Jonathan  Dickinson,  p.  301. 

t  Davies’  Sermons.  Hope  of  the  Righteous,  and  Divine  Authority  of  the 
Christian  Religion. 

f  Edwards’s  Works,  Vol.  3,  p.  544. 

§  Edwards’s  Works,  Vol.  4,  p.  8. 


beget  a  high  opinion  in  men  of  the  infallible  rule.  .  .  The 

devil  has  ever  shown  a  mortal  spite  toward  that  holy  book,  the 
Bible.  .  .  Every  text  in  it  is  a  dart  to  torment  the  old  ser¬ 

pent.  He  has  felt  the  stinging  smart  a  thousand  times;  there¬ 
fore  he  is  enraged  against  the  Bible,  and  hates  every  word  of 
it.  And,  accordingly,  we  see  it  common  in  enthusiasts,  that 
they  depreciate  the  written  rule,  and  set  up  the  light  within 
or  some  other  rule  above  it.”* * * § 

Let  us  now  cite  a  few  witnesses  to  speak  for  the  faith  of  our 
Church  at  the  period  when  our  standards  were  finally  adopted, 
as  we  have  them  now.  Dr.  Samuel  Stanhope  Smith  said: 
“  Here  it  is,  that  men  introducing  their  own  speculations  and 
mingling  their  own  philosophic  systems  with  the  Word  of  God, 
have  corrupted  its  simplicity.  .  .  Are  the  Divine  Scriptures 

then  of  doubtful  interpretation  ?  No,  they  are  full  of  light.  .  . 

They  are  a  fountain  of  truth. ”t 

Dr.  Alexander  McWhorter,  the  beloved  pastor  of  the  First 
Church  of  Newark,  stood  in  the  front  rank  of  the  Presbyterian 
ministry  of  his  day.  He  “  was  one  of  those  eminent  men  who, 
in  1788,  had  the  principal  agency  in  settling  the  Confession  of 
Faith  and  forming  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
and  in  transferring  the  authority  of  the  highest  judicatory 
from  the  Synod  to  the  General  Assembly.”  if  His  views  on 
the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  can  therefore  be  regarded  as 
fairly  representative  of  the  opinions  of  those  who  adopted  our 
present  Standards.  He  called  the  Scriptures  “the  holy  ora¬ 
cles  of  God,”  and  in  a  sermon  on  insoiration  he  said  :  “  Seeing 
the  truth  of  Scripture  can  be  established,  as  it  were,  by  ocular 
demonstration,  how  should  all  be  induced  to  search  them 
*  *  *  steadfastly  and  perseveringly  believe  that  all  Scripture 

is  given  by  inspiration  of  God.”§  On  another  occasion  he  said 
of  the  Bible  that  “it  is  styled  God’s  law  because  the  Scrip- 


*  Edwards’s  Works,  Vol.  1,  p.  542. 

f  Principles  of  Nature  and  Revealed  Religion,  p.  531. 

\  Sprague’s  Annals  of  the  American  Presbyterian  Pulpit,  Vol.  1,  p.  211. 

§  McWhorter’s  Sermons,  Vol.  i,  p.  34. 


72 


tures  are  given  by  the  Supreme  and  sovereign  Legislator — His 
Way,  because  they  contain  the  order  of  His  dispensations,  and 
the  course  of  man’s  obedience  —  His  Commandments ,  be¬ 
cause  issued  by  the  most  absolute  authority — His  Testimonies , 
because  attested  or  witnessed  to  the  world  by  the  most  ir¬ 
refragable  evidence — His  Precepts,  because  they  are  the  pre¬ 
scriptions  of  heaven  to  man — His  Word,  because  they  are  the 
declarations  of  His  will — His  Judgments ,  because  by  them  we 
shall  be  judged — His  Righteousness ,  because  holy,  just  and 
good,  and  the  standard  of  perfect  justice — His  Statutes,  be¬ 
cause  fixed,  immutable  and  of  perpetual  obligation  —  His 
Truth ,  because  they  are  faithful  sayings  and  founded  on  prin¬ 
ciples  of  eternal  verity.”'* * * § 

The  Rev.  John  Witherspoon,  D.  D.,  was  also  one  of  the  most 
prominent  and  influential  of  our  Presbyterian  divines  in  the 
revision  movement  of  1785  to  1788.  He  was  chairman  of  the 
committee  “appointed  to  take  into  consideration  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  Church  of  Scotland  and  other  Protestant  Churches; 
and  to  form  a  complete  system  for  the  organization  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.”  t  In  his,  extensive 
productions  he  so  constantly  takes  for  granted  the  full  inspira¬ 
tion  and  the  absolute  divine  authority  of  every  word  and  sen¬ 
tence  of  Scripture  that  he  nowhere  combats  the  contrary  view. 
All  his  references  to  the  doctrine  respecting  the  Bible  are  made 
in  incidental  ways,  and  are  therefore  all  the  more  valuable  as 
true  indications  of  the  faith  of  our  Church  on  these  questions 
at  that  time. 

He  speaks  of  the  Word  of  God  as  “  the  Scrip  hires  of 
truth,  from  which  virtue  derives  all  its  meaning  and  force;], 
”  the  Book  of  God ,’  in  which  He  himself  speaks  to  men 
for  their  condemnation  or  approval ;§  “God's  written  Word," 
wherein  He  hath  clearly  and  explicitly  written  His  name;|I 

*  McWhorter’s  Sermons,  Vol.  2,  p.  107. 

t  Sprague’s  American  Presbyterian  Pulpit,  Vol.  i,  p.  14. 

X  Witherspoon’s  Works,  Vol  1,  p.  69. 

§  Witherspoon’s  Works,  Vol.  1,  p.  254. 

J  Witherspoon’s  Works,  Vol.  2,  p.  49. 


73 


*<  the  Sacred  Writings  of  inspired  penmen ,’  which  make  plain 
the  absolute  necessity  of  salvation  through  Christ,  The 
Inspired  Writings  giving  us  “most  certain  proofs  of  true 
religion ;”+  “  the  Sacred  Volume  consists  of  history  ”  which  “  is 
an  improving  study.’  £  He  states:  “  There  is  a  preciousness  in 
every  truth  that  hath  the  stamp  of  divine  authority  upon  it, 
and  therefore  to  neglect  any  of  them  and  count  them  trifling , 
or  of  little  moment ,  argues  a  want  of  reverence  for  the  Word 
of  God.  The  Holy  Scriptures,  as  they  are  full  and  complete, 
containing  everything  that  is  necessary,  so  they  are  perfect 
and  faultless ,  containing  nothing  unnecessary.  Serious  per¬ 
sons  have  often  borne  testimony  to  the  great  utility  of  such 
parts  of  the  Sacred  Oracles  as  are  commonly  treated  with 
most  indifference.  Nay,  I  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  ven¬ 
eration  due  to  God,  who  doth  nothing  in  vain,  obliges  us  to 
believe  the  utility  of  those  passages  whose  purpose  we  our¬ 
selves  may  not  as  yet  have  clearly  perceived. ”§  Manifestly, 
Dr.  Witherspoon  did  not  share  in  the  views  of  Dr.  Briggs  in 
regard  to  circumstantials  and  non-essentials  in  Scripture. 

The  Rev.  Ashbel  Green,  D.  D.,  quoting  this  sentence  from 
Dr.  Dick  on  Inspiration  approvingly,  “  It  is  most  conformable 
to  truth,  that  in  their  expressions  as  well  as  in  their  sentiments 
the  writers  of  the  Bible  were  under  the  infallible  direction  of 
the  Spirit ’’—states  further,  that  the  Bible  “  can  be  satisfacto¬ 
rily  accounted  for  in  no  other  way  than  by  saying  that  these 
writers  were  all  guided  by  one  and  the  same  Spiiit  of  infallible 

truth. ”1! 

Nearly  sixty  years  ago  The  Rev.  Arcnibald  Alexander, 
D.D.,  expressed  himself  in  the  following  vigorous  terms: 

“There  is  something  reprehensible,  not  to  say  impious,  in 
that  bold  spirit  of  modern  criticism  which  has  led  many  emi- 


*  Witherspoon’s  Works,  Vol.  i,  p.  276. 

•}•  WTitherspoon’s  Works,  Vol.  1,  p.  27ft. 

X  Witherspoon’s  Works,  Vol.  I,  p.  426. 

$  Witherspoon’s  Works,  Vol.  2,  p.  243. 

|  Lectures  on  the  Shorter  Catechism,  Vol.  1,  pp.  71.  79* 


74 


nent  biblical  scholars,  especially  in  Germany,  first  to  attack 
the  authority  of  particular  books  of  Scripture,  and  next  to  call 
in  question  the  inspiration  of  the  whole  volume.  To  what  ex¬ 
tent  the  licentiousness  of  criticism  has  been  carried,  I  need  not 
say,  for  it  is  a  matter  of  notoriety  that  of  late  the  most  dan¬ 
gerous  enemies  of  the  Bible  have  been  found  occupying  the 
place  of  its  advocates,  and  the  critical  art,  which  was  intended 
for  the  correction  of  the  text  and  the  interpretation  of  the  sa¬ 
cred  books,  has  in  a  most  unnatural  way  been  turned  against 
the  Bible,  and  finally  the  inspiration  of  all  the  sacred  books  has 
not  only  been  questioned,  but  scornfully  rejected  by  profes¬ 
sors  of  theology .  And  these  men,  while  living  on  endowments 
which  pious  benevolence  had  consecrated  for  the  support  of 
religion,  and  openly  connected  with  churches  whose  creeds 
contain  orthodox  opinions,  have  so  far  forgotten  their  high 
responsibilities  and  neglected  the  claim  which  the  Church  had 
on  them,  as  to  exert  all  their  ingenuity  and  learning  to  sap  the 
foundation  of  that  system  they  were  sworn  to  defend.  They 
have  had  the  shameless  hardihood  to  send  forth  into  the  world 
books  under  their  own  names,  which  contain  fully  as  much 
of  the  poison  of  infidelity  as  ever  distilled  from  the  pens  of  the 
most  malignant  deists  whose  writings  have  fallen  as  a  curse 
on  the  world.”* 

Coming  into  the  present  century  a  little  further,  Dr.  Gardi- 
nci  Spring  defines  inspiration  in  the  following  discriminating 
manner  :  “  With  respect  to  matters  of  faith,  both  the  matter 

and  the  words  were  inspired,  and  the  writers  of  them  were  just¬ 
ly  called  the  amanuenses  of  the  Holy  Ghost”  ;  with  respect  to 
“Scripture  facts  handed  down  by  written  traditions  and  col¬ 
lected  from  other  authentic  sources,  to  them  the  writers  were 
divinely  directed,  and  in  the  presentation  of  them  they  were 
enabled,  by  the  Divine  Spirit,  to  distinguish  the  false  from  the 
true”;  with  respect  to  “things  or  facts  directly  perceived, 
seen  and  heard  by  the  writers  themselves,  in  recording  them 


Preface  to  Canon  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments.  London  Edition 
PP.  7,  8. 


e 


75 


the  Divine  Spirit  assisted  their  memories,  so  that  they  put 
down  what  they  did  really  see  and  hear.  In  one  word,  the 
God  of  heaven  has  given  such  a  direction  to  the  writers  of  this 
volume,  that  He  is  responsible  for  the  book  itself.”* * * § 

Albert  Barnes,  referring  to  the  perfection  of  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  states:  “The  sacred  writers  were  kept  from  error  on 
those  subjects  which  were  matters  of  their  own  observation,  or 
which  pertained  to  memory,  and  that  there  were  truths  impart¬ 
ed  to  them  directly  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  which  they  could 
never  have  arrived  at  by  the  unaided  exercise  of  their  own 
minds. ”t 

Again,  he  says  :  “  God  has  borne  witness  in  His  Word,  pledg¬ 
ing  His  veracity  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  statements  which 
are  thus  made.”J 

Dr.  Thomas  H.  Skinner  calls  the  statements  of  Scripture 
“the  outward  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit,”  which  is  to-be  re¬ 
ceived  as  “  perfect  certitude,”  for  the  reason  that  it  is  the  Word 
of  God.§ 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  men  of  all  “  sides  ”  and  “  schools  ”  in  the 
American  Presbyterian  Church  have  been  in  entire  agreement 
in  their  views  respecting  the  Holy  Scripture.  It  will  not  be 
possible  to  cite  a  single  individual  of  the  long  line  of  represen¬ 
tative  Presbyterian  divines  in  our  country,  who  has  not  held 
the  belief  of  the  plenary  inspiration  and  absolute  veracity  of 
the  written  Word  of  God.  And  when  the  founders  of  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church  in  this  country  adopted  our  Standards,  they 
did  so  because  they  understood  them  to  teach  these  doctrines 
respecting  the  Holy  Scripture. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America, 
in  its  organized  capacity,  after  searching  discussion  in  1728  and 
1729,  and  again  in  the  years  from  1785  to  1788,  adopted  the 
Standards  as  we  have  them  now,  not  because  they  were  framed 
by  the  divines  of  the  Westminster  Assembly,  but  because  they 

*  Bible  not  of  Man,  pp.  289,  290. 

f  Commentary  on  2  Tim.  iii.  16. 

\  Commentary  on  Psalm  xix.  7. 

§  Discussions  in  Theology,  p.  270. 


76 


represented  the  belief  of  those  adopting  them,  and  especiall) 
their  belief  as  to  the  Bible. 

The  subscription  which  we  make  to  them  was  intended  to 
be  so  true  and  full  that,  if  a  minister  should  change  his  views 
after  having  made  the  subscription,  he  should  report  that  fact 
to  Presbytery,  in  order  that  Presbytery  may  determine  whether 
or  not  the  changed  views  can  be  tolerated  under  the  Confes¬ 
sion. 

Our  Church  has  been  very  jealous  of  the  purity  of  these 
Standards,  and  has  insisted  on  a  sincere  acceptance  of  its  doc¬ 
trines  for  the  reason  that  it  has  considered  such  an  acceptance 
necessary  to  the  maintenance  of  Bible  truth. 

The  Assembly  of  1824  adopted,  among  others,  these  resolu¬ 
tions  : 

“That,  though  the  Confession  of  faith  and  Standards  of 
our  Church  are  of  no  original  authority,  independent  of  the 
Scriptures,  yet  we  regard  them  as  a  summary  of  those  Divine 
truths  which  are  diffused  throughout  the  sacred  volume. 

“  They,  as  a  system  of  doctrine,  therefore,  cannot  be  aban¬ 
doned  in  our  opinion,  without  an  abandonment  of  the  Word  of 
God.  They  form  a  bond  of  fellowship  in  the  faith  of  the  Gos¬ 
pel,  and  the  General  Assembly  cannot  but  believe  the  precious 
immortals  under  their  care  to  be  more  safe  in  receiving  the 
truth  of  God's  holy  Word,  as  exhibited  in  the  Standards  of  our 
Church,  than  in  being  subjected  to  the  guidance  of  any  in¬ 
structor,  whoever  he  may  be,  who  may  have  confidence  enough 
to  set  up  his  own  opinions  in  opposition  to  the  system  of  doc¬ 
trines  which  men  of  sound  learning,  full  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  mighty  in  the  Scriptures,  have  devised  from  the  Oracles  of 
the  living  God.  It  should  never  be  forgotten  that  the  Chuich 
is  solemnly  cautioned  against  being  carried  about  by  every 
wind  of  doctrine. 

“  This  confession  of  Faith,  adopted  by  our  Church,  contains 
a  system  of  doctrine  professedly  believed  by  the  people  and 
the  pastors  under  the  care  of  the  General  Assembly,  nor  can 
it  be  traduced  by  any  in  the  communion  of  our  Church,  with¬ 
out  subjecting  the  erring  parties  to  that  salutary  discipline 


77 


which  hath  for  its  object  the  maintenance  of  the  peace  anc. 
purity  of  the  Church,  under  the  government  of  her  great  Mas¬ 
ter.”  * 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  full  literal  inspiration  of  the 
written  Word  of  God,  and  its  entire  truthfulness,  has  been  held 
by  the  great  majority  of  disciples  in  the  true  historical  church 
of  Jesus  Christ  from  the  days  of  the  Apostles  until  now.  The 
testimony  in  its  favor  has  been  unbroken.  Only  in  compara¬ 
tively  modern  times  has  there  been  even  a  respectable  minority. 

And  it  should  be  clearly  understood  that  we  are  now  asked 
to  abandon  a  doctrine  in  regard  to  the  contents  and  origin  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  which  was  taught  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  Him¬ 
self,  reaffirmed  by  His  Apostles,  and  has  been  believed  by  the 
great  body  of  His  true  disciples  from  that  day  to  the  present 
time.  And  it  should  also  be  noted  here  that  they  have  belie \  ed 
this  doctrine  to  the  exclusion  of  that  advocated  by  Dr.  Briggs.. 
This  doctrine  of  an  errant  Scripture  has  been  known  and  urged 
all  along  the  Christian  centuries,  but  has  been  heretofore  held 
only  by  heretics  and  infidels.  It  is  plain  that  the  issue  v  ass 
made  as  early  as  in  Augustine  s  time.  In  a  lettei  to  Jerome 
he  states  :  “  For  it  seems  to  me  that  most  disastrous  conse¬ 
quences  must  follow  upon  our  believing  that  anything  false  is 
found  in  the  sacred  books.  That  is  to  say,  that  the  men  by 
whom  the  Scriptures  have  been  given  to  us,  and  committed 
to  writing,  did  put  down  in  those  books  anything  false.  1 
In  another  letter,  also  to  Jerome,  he  speaks  still  more  plainly: 
“  Then  indeed  without  any  fear  of  offense,  sport  is  carried  on 
as  it  were  on  the  greensward  :  but  I  should  marvel  if  wc  aie 
not  made  sport  of.  For  I  say  it  frankly  to  your  affection,  I 
have  learned  to  bestow  upon  those  books  of  the  Scriptures 
only  which  are  now  called  canonical  such  reverence  and 
honor  as  to  believe  with  absolute  positiveness  that  not  any 
author  of  them  has  made  any  mistake  in  writing.  And  if  I 
meet  with  anything  in  these  writings  which  would  seem  to  be 


*  Moore’s  Digest,  p.  54. 

\  Augustine’s  Letters,  London  Edition, \ol.  ii.,  p.  80 


78 


m  conflict  with  truth,  I  clo  not  hesitate  in  saying  that  it  is 
nothing  else  than  that  either  a  manuscript  is  faulty  or  that  the 
exegete  has  not  succeeded  in  getting  at  the  sense  of  the  words 
or  that  I  have  failed  altogether  in  penetrating  into  the  sense. 

“  Others,  however,  I  read  in  such  a  manner  that,  no  matter  in 
respect  to  what  sanctity  of  life  and  acccuracy  of  scholarship  they 
may  be  pre-eminent,  I  do  not  on  that  account  deem  it  true 
because  they  themselves  have  so  held;  but  because  they  were 
able  to  persuade  (me)  of  that  which  is  not  foreign  to  truth, 
either  through  those  canonical  writers  or  through  plausible 
proof,  nor  do  I  believe,  my  brother,  that  you  think  otherwise. 
I  utterly  refuse  to  believe,  I  say,  that  you  wish  to  have  your 
books  read  in  such  a  manner  as  if  they  were  those  of  the 
prophets  and  apostles;  as  to  whose  writings  it  is  wicked  (nefa- 
rium)  to  doubt  that  that  they  lack  all  error.”* 

The  views  of  Origen  and  Jerome,  as  put  in  evidence  by  Dr. 
Briggs,  do  not  show  that  they  held  that  there  are  errors  in  the 
Scripture.  This  disposes  of  all  the  witnesses  introduced  by 
Dr.  Briggs,  in  favor  of  an  errant  Bible,  from  the  Fathers  down 
to  and  including  the  Westminster  divines. 

That  this  has  substantially  been  the  unbroken  belief  of  the 
Church  of  Jesus  Christ  until  recent  times,  even  among  the  most 
liberal  members  of  the  evangelical  wing  of  it,  is  evident  from 
a  statement  which  Dr.  Philip  Schaff  has  made  on  the  subject. 
He  says:  “  The  Bible  is  thoroughly  human,  though  without 
error,  in  contents  and  form,  in  the  mode  of  its  rise,  its  compila¬ 
tion,  its  preservation,  and  transmission;  yet  at  the  same  time 
thoroughly  divine,  both  in  its  thoughts  and  words,  in  its  origin, 
vitality,  energy,  and  effect. ”t  And  this  shows  as  plainly  as 
anything  can,  that  the  view  which  Dr.  Briggs  advocates  as  to 
the  errancy  of  Scripture  marks  a  clear  departure  from  the  an¬ 
cestral  faith. 

It  is  a  serious  situation,  especially  since,  in  the  place  of  the 
Scriptural  doctrine,  tolerance  is  sought  for  an  unscriptural  one 
which  destroys  the  infallibility  of  the  Bible,  as  a  rule  of  faith 
and  practice. 

Dr.  Briggs  earnestly  insists  on  an  errant  Scripture.  But  all 
the  errors  which  he  says  biblical  scholars  find  in  the  Bible 
have  been  known  for  generations.  He  has  not  given  a  single  new 

*  Migne  PatrologiaeCursus  Completus,  Vol.  xxxiii. ,  Sancti  A.  Augustine 
Opera  II.,  p.  275,  Epistola  82. 

f  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  First,  Edition,  Vol.  i.,  p.  93. 


79 


one.  Those  which  he  has  given  have  again  and  again  been 
shown  by  the  great  divines  and  biblical  scholars  of  the  Church 
to  be  no  errors,  but  only  discrepancies  which  can  readily  be 
accounted  for.  It  is  intimated  that  unless  left  to  their  freedom 
in  this  matter,  the  critics  will,  in  self-defence,  be  obliged  to 
publish  a  catalogue  of  the  errors  which  they  find  in  the  Word 
of  God.  By  all  means,  let  the  so-called  errors  be  tabulated 
and  published.  Great  good  is  certain  to  result  from  it.  For 
one  thing,  it  will  relieve  uncertainty,  which  is  always  painful. 

And  then,  also,  the  publication  of  the  so-called  errors  is  sure 
tc  call  to  the  front  devout  scholars  who  will  readily  show 
them  to  be  no  errors  at  all,  and  explain  them  successfully  in 
harmony  with  the  received  doctrine. 

Infidels  have  long  desired  to  find  errors  and  difficulties  in 
the  Word  of  God,  such  as  would  destroy  its  claim  to  divine  in¬ 
spiration  and  authority,  and  to  its  infallible  truthfulness,  and 
if  they  were  to  be  found,  we  may  be  sure  they  would  have  been 
published  long  ago. 

The  doctrine  remains  unshaken.  There  is  not  only  no 
reason  for  abandoning  it,  but  every  reason  for  clinging  to  it 
more  firmly,  since  by  new  discoveries  made  in  Bible  lands,  one 
difficulty  after  another  disappears,  until  only  a  remnant  re¬ 
mains.  The  hardest  tests  have  been  applied  to  the  Bible,  often 
most  recklessly,  endeavoring  in  every  possible  way  to  invali¬ 
date  its  inspiration  and  truthfulness,  but  that  inspiration  and 
truthfulness  are  unimpeached.  There  are  textual  difficulties, 
but  they  do  not  prove  that  there  were  errors  in  the  original 
Scriptures.  Difficulties  “  are  vanishing  factors  in  the  progres¬ 
sive  series  of  argument;  they  leave  but  a  minimum  of  doubt 
against  a  maximum  of  proof.”  Years  ago  Coleridge  conceded 

that  the  errors  in  detail  maybe  reduced  to  some  half  score 
of  apparent  discrepancies, — ‘  a  petty  breach,  or  a  rat-hole  in 
the  walls  of  the  temple.'”  And  it  would  probably  never  have 
occurred  to  any  one  but  the  higher  critics,  that  breaches  and 
rat-holes  were  a  part  of  the  original  temple. 

The  claim  made  by  Dr.  Briggs,  therefore,  that  the  doctrine 
of  the  full  inspiration  of  the  written  Word  of  God,  and  its  en¬ 
tire  truthfulness,  is  a  modern  notion  and  not  the  doctrine  of 
the  Bible  and  the  Church,  is  wholly  without  foundation.  It  is 
the  doctrine  which  the  living  Church  of  Christ  has  held  through 
all  the  Christian  centuries.  It  is  particularly  the  doctrine  of 
the  Scripture  itself,  as  set  forth  in  the  Standards  of  our  Church, 


So 


from  which  Professor  Briggs  has  so  widely  departed.  He  has 
set  up  in  its  place  another  doctrine,  according  to  which,  we 
cannot  say,  in  a  real  sense,  that  the  written  Bible  is  inspired, 
since  the  entire  text  of  it  is  only  of  human  origin,  and  its  con¬ 
tents  are  pervaded  by  numerous  errors.  He  does  not  receive 
as  true  what  is  written  in  the  Scripture,  because  it  is  the 
Word  of  God  in  the  sense  that  the  God  of  truth  is  the  author 
of  it  ;  but  he  receives  some  things  in  them  as  true  for  the 
reason  that  some  standard  in  himself  approves  them  as  true. 
It  may  be  “  the  reason  trained  and  strained,”  rising  to  the 
height  of  its  energies,  and  so  putting  us  in  possession  of  the 
truth  and  power  of  the  Bible. 

But,  whatever  it  be,  Dr.  Briggs’s  theory  is  contrary  to  the 
true  doctrine  of  inspiration,  and  not  only  destroys  the  infalli¬ 
bility  of  the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  sub¬ 
ordinates  it  as  well  to  a  subjective  standard  by  which  it  is  to 
be  determined,  first  of  all,  how  much  of  Scripture  we  will 
receive  as  the  truth  of  God,  and  it  ought  therefore  to  be  con¬ 
demned  by  this  Presbytery. 

GENUINENESS  AND  AUTHENTICITY. 

The  fourth  and  fifth  charges  refer  to  the  genuineness  and 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Isaiah.  Dr. 
Briggs  admits  the  facts  given  in  the  specifications  on  which 
the  prosecution  relies  to  sustain  the  charges,  but  he  denies  that 
the  charges  are  sustained  by  them.  He  affirms,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  that  his  views  on  these  questions  are  contrary  neither  to 
the  Scripture  nor  to  the  Standards,  and  especially  not  to  tne 
integrity,  credibility  and  self-evidencing  character  of  the  floly 
Scripture.  It  is  for  the  court  to  decide  whether  or  not  these 
claims  of  Dr.  Briggs  are  correct  in  the  light  of  Scripture  and  the 
Standards. 

Let  me  say  at  the  outset  that  the  fact  that  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  the  books  of  Esther,  Kings,  Chronicles  and  others, 
may  have  no  known  authors  has  no  bearing  on  the  question. 
The  Bible  claims  no  particular  author  for  any  of  these  books. 
The  fact  that  all  the  Psalms  were  not  written  by  David  also 
has  no  relevancy  here,  for  the  Bible  assigns  some  of  the  Psalms 
to  other  authors.  What  we  claim  is  that,  when  the  Bible  does 
assign  an  author  to  a  particular  book,  its  decision  must  be 
regarded  as  final 

i.  We  will  give  our  attention  first  to  the  Pentateuch .  Dr. 


8i 


Briggs  declares  that,  as  an  assured  result  of  scientific  investi¬ 
gation,  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch.  For  upward 
of  3,000  years  God’s  people  have  believed  that,  so  far  as  human 
agency  is  concerned,  the  Pentateuch  is  the  work  of  Moses. 
An  ancient  belief  like  this,  which  is  universal,  accredited  by 
the  highest  testimony,  and  transmitted  through  reliable  chan¬ 
nels,  cannot  be  thrown  aside  without  the  clearest  evidence  of 
its  untrustworthiness.  It  is  not  denied  that  Moses  may  have 
had  many  ancient  documents  and  worked  them  into  his  own 
writings,  especially  in  the  composition  of  Genesis;  nor  that  he 
may  have  employed  amanuenses;  nor  that  editorial  glosses  of 
later  editions  may  have  crept  into  the  text,  notably  the  account 
of  Moses’  death;  but  it  is  asserted  that  the  Pentateuch,  sub¬ 
stantially  as  it  now  exists,  with  its  different  legislative  codes 
and  its  veritable  contemporaneous  history,  is  to  be  ascribed  to 
Moses  as  its  author. 

An  edition  of  the  writings  of  Chaucer,  put  into  modern  Eng¬ 
lish  and  interspersed  with  editorial  glosses,  would  be,  in  every 
proper  sense,  assigned  to  the  authorship  of  Chaucer.  In  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  way  is  Moses  believed  to  be  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch.  This  belief  cannot  be  set  aside  by  putting  upon 
it  the  stigma  of  being  based  on  mere  tradition.  It  is  true  that 
tradition  is  not  always  reliable.  But  let  it  be  remembered  that 
the  mosttrustworthy  historical  events  are  not  capable  of  mathe¬ 
matical  demonstration.  They  rest  on  probable  evidence.  And 
a  tradition  concerning  events  of  the  distant  past,  if  it  be  re¬ 
ceived  from  trustworthy  sources  of  information,  be  uniform, 
uninterrupted  and  universal,  and  have  the  unbroken  support 
of  national  writers  of  the  highest  credibility  and  of  the  purest 
moral  aims,  commends  itself  to  our  belief  on  the  most  reliable 
historical  evidence.  This  is  true  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  of 
the  Pentateuch.  And  this  tradition  is  still  more  worthy  of  our 
acceptance,  since,  as  we  shall  see,  it  has  the  unqualified  in¬ 
dorsement  of  the  Holy  Scriptures. 

We  have  placed  before  you  in  the  indictment  a  series  of 
texts  which  give  us  some  of  the  direct  testimony  of  Scripture 
itself  on  this  question.  These  show  that  the  Pentateuch  claims 


82 


for  itself  a  Mosaic  authorship;  that  it  was  written  before  the 
death  of  Moses  and  then  placed  in  the  hands  of  Joshua;  that 
in  the  period  of  the  Kings,  it  was  regarded  as  having  the  high¬ 
est  divine  authority;  and  that  in  the  time  of  Ezra  and  Nehe- 
miah  it  was  an  ancient  book,  greatly  venerated.  Daniel  bears 
testimony  to  the  estimate  placed  on  it  in  his  day. 

This  is  the  direct  testimony  which  the  Old  Testament  bears 
to  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  indirect  tes¬ 
timony  to  the  same  effect  is  very  much  stronger. 

It  is  impossible  properly  to  understand  the  other  books  of 
the  Old  Testament  except  on  the  supposition  of  the  existence 
of  the  history,  laws  and  truths  of  the  Pentateuch  during  the 
period  which  they  respectively  cover.  The  Pentateuch  per¬ 
vades  every  phase  of  the  life  of  Israel  through  all  those  times. 
The  Book  of  Ruth  is  confessedly  ancient,  but  the  civil,  social 
and  religious  life  revealed  in  it  cannot  be  satisfactorily  ex¬ 
plained,  except  on  the  supposition  that  the  laws  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  were  in  practical  operation  at  that  time. 

Consider  now  that  the  historical  character  of  the  Pentateuch 
is  vitally  bound  up  with  its  Mosaic  authorship.  The  two  stand 
or  fall  together.  If  the  Pentateuch  claims  for  itself  a  Mosaic 
authorship,  and  that  claim  should  be  proven  to  be  false,  it 
would  lose  its  historical  character  and  pass  into  the  region  of 
invention  and  legend.  And  it  will  not  be  denied  that,  on  the 
face  of  it,  the  Pentateuch  lays  claim  to  such  an  authorship,  it 
being  conceded  that  Genesis  has  a  common  author  with  the 
other  four  books. 

Critics  like  Kuenen  admit  that  the  Pentateuch  claims  to 
have  Moses  for  its  author.  * 

Bleek  positively  affirms  that :  “On  this  point  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  the  laws  as  we  find  them  in  these  books  all  claim  to 
be  Mosaic  in  origin.”  t 

And  I  repeat,  if  this  claim  be  not  correct,  then  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  gives  us  no  true  history.  What  appears  to  be  history  is 


*  The  Hexateuch,  pp.  18-24. 

+  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  Vol.  1,  p.  203. 


83 


merely  fiction,  the  literary  form,  the  histrionic  dress,  to  set  off 
with  effect  the  codes  contained  in  it.  The  laws  must  either 
have  been  given  by  Moses  in  the  desert,  as  it  is  stated,  or  they 
were  merely  put  into  his  mouth  by  a  clever  writer. 

Let  us  now  observe  that  Christ  and  his  Apostles  treat  the 
Pentateuch  as  credible  history.  Thus  our  Lord  accepts  as 
genuine  history  the  account  of  the  creation;  of  Noah  and  the 
Flood;  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah;  of  the  calling  of  Moses;  of 
the  brazen  serpent;  of  the  giving  of  manna  from  heaven, 
and  of  the  giving  by  Moses  of  several  of  the  Pentateuchal 

laws.  * * * § 

In  the  same  way  the  Apostles  treated  as  actual  historical 
occurrences,  and  enforced  doctrines  and  duties  from  them, 
the  account  of  the  creation  of  man  and  woman;  of  Noah  and 
the  Flood;  of  the  destruction  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah;  the 
story  of  Balaam  ,  the  lives  of  the  Patriarchs ;  the  account  of 
the  Exodus;  and  in  passages  like  the  seventh  and  thirteenth 
chapters  of  Acts,  and  the  entire  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  the 
Pentateuch  is  assumed  to  be  true  in  all  its  parts,  like  the  his¬ 
toric  facts  on  which  Christianity  is  founded. t 

In  regard  to  considerable  portions  of  the  Pentateuch,  it  is 
positively  affirmed  that  Moses  wrote  them.J  Written  books 
and  laws  are  also  mentioned,  of’which,  by  fair  implication,  Mo¬ 
ses  was  the  author.  §  It  is  also  worthy  of  notice  that  at  the 
command  of  Jehovah,  Moses  wrote  religious  history  before  the 
law  was  given  on  Sinai. [| 

But  it  is  not  claimed  that  these  positive  statements  are  suf- 


*  Matt.  xix.  4,  5;  xxiv.  37-39;  Luke  xvii.  28,  29,  32;  Mark  xii.  26;  John  iii. 
14;  vi.  32;  Matt.  viii.  4;  Mark  vii.  10;  John  vii.  22,  23.  See  also  Matt.  xv.  4,  5 
and  xix.  7,  8. 

f  1  Tim.  ii.  13,14  ;  1  Cor.  xi.  8,  9  ;  1  Pet.  iii.  20;  2  Pet.  ii.  6,  7;  ii.  15,  16; 
Rom.  iv.  1-3,  11 ;  ix.  7-13;  Gal.  iii.  6-8;  iv.  22-31;  1  Pet.  iii.  6;  1  Cor.  x.  1-10; 
Acts  xiii.  17,  18;  2  Cor.  iii.  7-13. 

%  Exodus  xvii.  4;  xxiv.  4;  xxxiv.  28;  Num.  xxxiii.  2;  Deut.  xxxi.  9,  24. 

§  Exodus  xxiv.  7;  Deut.  xxxi.  26;  xxviii.  58,  61;  xxix.  20,  26;  xxx.  10. 

I  Exodus  xvii.  4. 


84 


ficient  to  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  entire  Penta¬ 
teuch.  However,  since  it  is  unusual  for  an  author  to  intersperse 
his  writings  with  repeated  claims  of  their  authorship,  some 
scholars  have  considered  them  sufficient  to  establish  that  point. 

But  we  desire  here  only  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  in 
the  book  itself  considerable  sections  are  assigned  directly  to 
the  pen  of  Moses;  and  to  the  further  fact  that  Moses  is  the 
only  man  mentioned  whom  the  Lord  used  to  write  those  truths 
which  He  desired  to  transmit  in  permanent  form  to  his  Church 
and  the  world.  These  two  facts,  taken  in  connection  with  the 
testimony  of  a  tradition  which  is  unbroken  and  universal,  raise 
a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  Mosaic  authorship  sub¬ 
stantially  of  the  entire  document.  And  as  strongly  confirma¬ 
tory  of  that  position,  in  an  indirect  way,  it  should  be  men¬ 
tioned,  in  passing,  that  the  writer  of  this  composition,  especially 
of  Genesis  and  Exodus,  is  acknowledged  to  have  been  a 
learned  Hebrew,  who  had  an  intimate  acquaintance  with  Ara¬ 
bian  and  Egyptian  affairs.  There  is  no  man  known  who  meets 
that  condition  more  exactly  than  Moses. 

But  there  is  another  line  of  evidence  in  favor  of  the  direct 
claim  of  the  Pentateuch  itself  for  its  Mosaic  authorship  which 
is  simply  overwhelming.  To  this  your  attention  is  now  directed. 
In  the  so-called  middle  books,  from  the  third  chapter  of  Exo¬ 
dus  to  the  end  of  Numbers,  we  have  a  vast  body  of  laws,  regu¬ 
lations  and  directions  in  the  form  of  revelations  from  Jehovah 
to  His  servant  Moses.  These  revelations  were  so  numerous, 
extended  to  such  a  minuteness  and  variety  of  detail,  and  were 
so  largely  designed  for  the  intermediate  practice  of  the  people 
that,  for  their  proper  understanding  and  promulgation  among 
them,  there  was  an  absolute  necessity  of  reducing  them  im¬ 
mediately  to  writing.  And  furthermore,  the  sections  which 
indicate  Moses  by  name  as  the  human  source  of  the  contents 
of  these  middle  books,  come  so  close  together,  there  being 
often  two  or  more  of  them  in  the  same  chapter,  that  it  amounts 
to  special  pleading  to  deny  the  Mosaic  source  of  the  interven¬ 
ing  portions.  Leviticus  alone  has  sixty  references  to  its  Mosaic 
authorship. 


85 


The  first  verse  of  Deuteronomy  gives  the  title  to  the  whole 
book,  and  to  affirm  that  it  does  not  all  along  claim  on  the  face 
of  it  to  be  the  production  of  Moses,  results  in  a  mere  war  of 
words.  Moses  is  referred  to  in  Deuteronomy  more  than  twenty- 
five  times  as  the  author  of  it,  and  yet  Dr.  Briggs  calls  it  a 
pseudonym.* 

It  is  expressly  stated  that  the  Lord  said  to  Moses  :  “  But  as 
for  thee ,  stand  thou  here  by  me,  and  I  will  speak  unto  thee  all 
the  commandments ,  and  the  statutes,  and  the  judgments,  which 
thoti  shalt  teach  them,  that  they  may  do  them  in  the  land  which 
I  give  them  to  possess  it."  Then  it  is  written  that  “ Moses 
wrote  all  the  zvords  of  the  Lordf  as  well  as  “  their  goings  out 
according  to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord.”  It  would  in¬ 
deed  have  been  impossible  for  Moses  to  have  taught  these 
ordinances  to  the  people,  and  to  put  them  in  permanent  form 
for  their  guidance  in  the  promised  land,  unless  he  had  written 
them  down  as  the  document  states  he  did.  And  that  view  is 
greatly  strengthened  by  the  fact  that  in  the  other  books  of  the 
Old  Testament  the  people  are  directed  to  observe  the  laws  of 
Moses,  and  that  their  confession  of  sin  almost  invariably  took 
the  form  of  owning  that  they  had  done  contrary  to  the  com¬ 
mandments,  statutes  and  ordinances  which  the  Lord  had  given 
them  by  the  hand  of  His  servant  Moses.  As  soon  as  the 
great  lawgiver  was  dead  Joshua  was  directed  by  God,  “  to  do 
according  to  all  the  law  which  Moses  my  servant  commanded 
thee;  turn  not  from  it  to  the  right  hand  or  to  the  left.”  He 
was  charged  to  “meditate  day  and  night  in  the  book  of  the 
law;  that  thou  mayest  observe  to  do  according  to  all  that  is 
written  therein.”  This  position  receives  still  further  strength 
from  the  fact,  which  should  not  escape  our  observation  here, 
that  soon  after  the  departure  of  Moses  theophany  ceased  in  a 
measure,  and  the  ^Israelites  became  the  people  of  the  Book. 
God  required  them  to  guide  their  conduct,  after  that,  by  those 
truths  and  regulations  which  He  had  made  known  to  Moses, 
and  which  Moses  had  written  in  a  book  for  their  direction. 
This  is  furthermore  directly  confirmed  by  the  statement  of 
Luke  in  the  book  of  Acts,  that  Moses  received  “  the  lively 


*  Bib.  Study,  p.  224. 


86 


oracles  ”  from  the  Lord  for  the  purpose  of  giving  them  to  the 
Jewish  people.  * 

This  direct  claim  of  the  Pentateuch  that  Moses  was  the  au¬ 
thor  of  it,  is  strongly  fortified  by  an  abundance  of  indirect  evi¬ 
dence  which  is  found  also  in  the  document  itself.  A  large 
number  of  the  laws  and  regulations  which  are  contained  in  the 
Pentateuch,  cannot  be  understood  and  would  indeed  be  mean¬ 
ingless,  except  from  the  historical  background  of  the  Mosaic 
age,  and  of  the  journey  of  Israel  through  the  wilderness  under 
the  leadership  of  Moses,  when  the  people  dwelt  in  tents,  and 
when  Aaron  and  Eleazar  were  priests,  t 

If  now  we  combine  the  direct  and  indirect  evidence  which 
the  Pentateuch  gives  concerning  itself,  we  have  in  it  over¬ 
whelming  testimony  in  favor  of  its  own  claim  that  the  great 
mass  of  Pentateuchal  writings,  the  historical  narratives  as  well 
as  the  legal  codes,  is,  in  its  matter,  substance  and  essential 
form,  to  be  credited  to  the  authorship  of  Moses. 

In  his  response  to  the  charges  of  the  prosecuting  committee 
Dr.  Briggs  states  :  “Though  Moses  be  not  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,  yet  Mosaic  history,  Mosaic  institutions  and  Mo¬ 
saic  legislation  lie  at  the  base  of  all  the  original  documents, 
and  the  name  of  Moses  pervades  the  Pentateuch  as  a  sweet 
fragrance,  and  binds  the  whole  together  with  irresistible  at¬ 
traction  into  an  organism  of  divine  law.”  X 

But  the  Pentateuch  gives  a  different  account  of  itself.  It 
claims  Moses,  not  merely  as  a  sweet,  pervading  fragrance,  not 
merely  as  the  author  of  a  few  of  the  germinal  laws  of  its  codes, 
but  as  a  living  personal  presence  from  whom,  either  as  author  or 
medium,  the  great  bulk,  at  least,  of  its  contents  was  given. 
It  presents  him  as  the  grand  personality  who  inspired  and  di¬ 
rected  everything.  And  if  Mosaic  history,  institutions  and 
legislation  merely  “  lie  at  the  base  of  all  the  original  docu¬ 
ments,  and  the  name  of  Moses  pervades  the  Pentateuch  as  a 

*  Acts  vii.  38. 

f  Leviticus,  chapters  i.  to  vii.  Exodus,  chapters  xxv.  to  xxxi.  Leviticus, 
x.  1,  and  following:  xi.  13,  18;  xiii.  46;  xiv.  2,  3,  8  (33~53);  Leviticus,  chapter 
xvi.  Numbers,  chapters  i.,  ii.,  iv. ,  ix. ,  and  x. 

\  Response  to  Charges,  p.  21. 


37 


sweet  fragrance  ”  only,  then  its  own  story  must  be  taken  at  a 
vast  discount;  its  genuineness  discarded,  and  thus  its  credi¬ 
bility  will  be  effectually  destroyed,  since  any  document  proven 
to  make  false  claims  and  shown  not  to  be  genuine,  is  univer¬ 
sally  held  to  be  untrustworthy. 

If  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  then  the  writer 
of  it  perpetrated  a  fraud,  and  a  fraud  so  cunningly  devised  that 
it  has  deceived  completely  the  people  of  God  and  in  fact  the 
whole  world,  for  thousands  of  years,  and  deceived  also  Christ 
and  his  Apostles,  unless  they  connived  at  it. 

And  further,  if  the  things  related  in  the  Pentateuch  as  his¬ 
toric  facts,  and  treated  so  by  Christ  and  His  Apostles,  are 
really  not  such,  then  the  teachings  of  a  considerable  portion 
of  the  Gospels,  Acts,  Epistles,  and  almost  the  whole  of  He¬ 
brews,  particularly  the  eleventh  chapter,  with  its  long  list  of 
the  noble  heroes  of  the  faith,  rest  on  legends,  and  that  fact 
cannot  fail  to  invalidate  the  general  trustworthiness,  not  only 
of  the  Pentateuch,  but  of  the  entire  Scriptures,  as  a  rule,  in 
faith  and  life.  It  is  sure  to  shake  the  faith  of  man  in  the  truth¬ 
fulness  of  the  whole  Bible. 

Take  into  consideration,  now,  the  further  fact  that  Christ  and 
the  Apostles  unqualifiedly  gave  their  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.*  Both  Josephus  and  Philo 
make  it  clear  that  when  any  of  the  terms,  “the Law ,”  “the  Law 
of  Moses,”  “the  Book  of  Moses ,”  and  “Moses  writings ,”  were 
used  by  the  Jews  of  that  time,  the  entire  Pentateuch  was 
meant.f 

*  Matt.  8:  4;  19:  7,  8;  22:  24  (with  Mark  12:  19  and  Luke  20:  28);  Matt.  23: 
2;  Mark  7:  10;  10:  3,4;  12:  26;  Luke  2:  22;  16:  29,  31;  20:  37;  24:  44;  John 
1:  17.  45;  5-  45.  46;  6:  32;  7:  22,  23;  Acts  3:  22;  6:  14;  7:  37;  13:  39;  15:  1,  5* 
21;  26:  22;  28:  23;  Rom.  10:  5,  19;  1  Cor.  9:  9;  2  Cor.  3:  15;  Heb.  7:  14;  9:  19; 
10:  28. 

\  Josephus  states:  “  All  our  constitution  depends  on  Moses  our  legislator.” 

“  For  we  have  not  an  innumerable  multitude  of  books,  disagreeing  from  and 
contradicting  one  another  (as  the  Greeks  have),  but  only  22  books,  which  con¬ 
tain  the  records  of  all  past  times,  which  are  justly  claimed  to  be  divine,  and  of 
them  five  belong  to  Moses,  which  contain  his  laws  and  the  tradition  of  the  ori¬ 
gin  of  mankind  until  his  death.” — Whiston’s  Josephus,  pp.  30,  861. 

Philo  said:  “We  find,  then,  that  in  the  sacred  oracles  delivered  by  the 
prophet  Moses,  there  are  three  kinds  of  characters;  for  a  portion  of  them  re¬ 
lates  to  the  creation  of  the  world,  a  portion  is  historical,  and  a  third  portion  is 
legislative.”  On  the  next  page  he  makes  it  plain  that  in  that  description  he 
includes  the  entire  Pentateuch. — Philo’s  Work,  Bohn’s  Edition.  Vol.  3,  p.  456, 


88 


Dr.  Bleek  states  that  in  the  time  of  Christ  it  was  the  uni¬ 
versal  belief  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  entire  Penta¬ 
teuch.  * * * §  When,  therefore,  Christ  and  the  Apostles  referred  to 
the  law  and  writings  of  Moses,  they  knew  that  they  were 
understood  to  endorse  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
This,  as  teachers  and  lovers  of  the  truth,  as  honest  men,  they 
could  not  have  done  if  they  knew  that  Moses  did  not  produce 
those  writings.  They  looked  on  Moses  not  only  as  a  great 
historic  person,  but  supposed  him  to  be  a  law-giver,  and  an 
author,  who  left  writings  behind  him,  in  which  he  wrote  about 
Christ;  and  these  laws  and  writings  of  Moses,  in  their  view, 
make  up  the  Pentateuch.  In  ascribing  to  Moses  the  Patriar¬ 
chal  institution  of  circumcision,  f  the  account  of  the  burning 
bush,  X  and  laws  like  that  of  divorce, §  Christ  credits  Moses 
with  being  the  author  of  the  Pre-Mosaic,  the  historical  and  the 
legislative  portions  of  the  Pentateuch.  To  say  that  they  simply 
employed  conventional  modes  of  expression,  is  to  evade  the 
natural  and  legitimate  import  of  their  statements. 

The  entire  fabric  and  make-up  of  the  Scripturedhen  rest  on 
the  historical  character  and  Mosaic  origin  of  the  Pentateuch. 
All  the  writers  of  the  Scripture  testified  either  directly  or  in¬ 
directly  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  it.  Manifestly  they  fully 
believed  it,  and  many  parts  of  the  Bible  are  meaningless  if  that 
is  not  the  case.  Above  all,  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  is  indorsed  by  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  himself,  the 
world’s  one  true  Prophet,  the  Faithful  and  True  witness.  This 
also  is  the  doctrine  of  our  Confession  of  Faith.  In  Section  2d 
of  the  19th  Chapter,  it  is  distinctly  affirmed  that  God  delivered 
the  moral  law  on  Mount  Sinai;  and  in  the  3d  Section,  that  He 
gave  the  ceremonial  law  to  the  people  of  Israel,  as  a  Church 
under  age,  which  evidently  refers  to  their  life  in  the  desert. 

Against  this  united  stand  of  the  authors  of  the  Holy  Scrip- 

*  Bleek’s  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  Vol.  I., 

f  John  7,  22. 

X  Mark  12,  26. 

§  Mark  10,  5. 


p.  192. 


89 


ture,  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that  the  higher  criticism,  by  means 
of  scientific  investigation,  has  reached  the  “certain  result”* * * § 
that  the  Pentateuch  is  not  of  Mosaic  origin.  It  belongs  to  that 
“great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament”  which  “  was  written  by 
authors  whose  names  or  connection  with  their  writings  are 
lost  in  oblivion.”  +  Dr.  Briggs  declares  the  Pentateuch  to  be 
an  “  anonymous  ”  book,  whose  authenticity  and  genuineness 
are  maintained  by  blind  traditionalists.  J  This  is  one  of  the 
obstructions  which  keep  men  from  the  Bible,  and  which  must 
be  destroyed.  It  is  one  of  the  things  in  reference  to  which  he 
states,  of  himself  and  his  fellow  critics:  “We  have  undermined 
the  breastworks  of  traditionalism;  let  us  blow  them  to  atoms. 
We  have  forced  our  way  through  the  obstructions;  let  us  re¬ 
move  them  from  the  face  of  the  earth;”  §  and  so  the  “  victorious 
army  of  the  critics  ”  is  determined  to  force  its  opinions  on  the 
Church.  These  be  swelling  words,  and  bold,  but  none  too 
bold,  if  true.  Let  us  see  if  any  known  facts  bear  out  this 
vaunting  assertion. 

Dr.  Briggs  identifies  himself  with  the  higher  criticism,  and 
accepts  the  results  attained  by  it,  in  regard  to  the  matter 
in  hand,  as  established  facts.  He  does  not  go  the  whole 
length  of  the  advanced  radical  party  of  critics,  but  claims  to 
hold  a  conservative  position.  He  does  not  believe  as  thor¬ 
oughly  in  this  criticism  as  the  authors  of  it  do,  but  accepts  the 
principles  of  it  as  sound,  and  holds  essentially  that  its  conclu¬ 
sions  in  respect  to  the  Pentateuch  are  true. 

What,  then,  is  the  position  of  this  criticism  in  regard  to  the 
origin  and  composition  of  the  Pentateuch  ?  Briefly  stated  it  is 
this:  The  Pentateuch  is  the  product  of  a  number  of  indepen¬ 
dent  authors.  It  contains  three  conflicting  and  irreconcilable 
codes,  the  earliest  of  which  did  not  originate  until  after  the 
times  of  Moses  —  some  say,  not  until  hundreds  of  year", 
afterward.  Dr.  Driver,  whose  last  book  Dr.  Briggs  has  in- 

*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  23. 

f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  23. 

%  Biblical  Study,  pp.  222,  223. 

§  Inaugural  Address,  p.  41. 


9o 


troduced  to  the  American  public  under  his  own  imprimatur 
without  dissent,  and  whose  views  on  this  subject  he  therefore 
fathers,  states  that  the  oldest  Pentateuchal  document,  J  E, 
sometimes  called  the  prophetic  document,  was  produced  not 
earlier  than  400  years  after  the  times  of  Moses,  perhaps  not 
earlier  than  700  years  after;  that  Deuteronomy  was  written 
750  years  after  Moses;  and  that  the  Priest-Code,  comprising 
more  than  two-thirds  of  the  contents  of  the  Pentateuch,  was 
written  about  1,000  years  subsequent  to  Mosaic  times.  This 
is  substantially  the  view  of  Dr.  Briggs,  as  shown  by  the  docu¬ 
ments  put  in  your  hands  by  him.  Right  here  it  is  worthy  of 
notice  that  the  laws  of  this  Priest-Code  were  by  Christ  and  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament  ascribed  to  Moses.*  These  writ¬ 
ings,  so  say  the  critics,  were  put  together  by  learned  scribes, 
who  acted  as  redactors,  and  made  emendations  and  additions 
of  their  own.  They  did  their  work  but  passably  well,  and 
hence  the  narrative  portion  of  the  document  is  full  of  anach¬ 
ronisms  and  contradictions.  Most  of  the  references  to  Moses 
in  the  wilderness,  if  not  all,  and  the  utterances  of  Jehovah, 
are  mere  literary  accommodations  to  give  a  becoming  form 
to  the  composition.  And  to  get  at  the  real  facts  and  truth  of 
the  book  we  must  consult  the  verdict  of  the  higher  criticism. 

Most  of  the  higher  critics  would  banish  the  divine  element 
altogether.  Indeed  the  theory  of  the  higher  criticism  largely 
owes  its  origin  to  the  assumption  that  the  existence  of  the 
supernatural  in  the  Holy  Scripture,  especially  in  the  earlier 
records  of  it,  destroys  its  historical  credibility.  The  rest  of 
the  higher  critics  minimize  the  supernatural  element.  But 
Dr.  Briggs  retains  it,  and  he  would  have  us  believe  that 
the  Pentateuch,  made  up  as  we  have  described,  is  yet 
an  inspired  book.  I  can  conceive  how,  with  Dr.  Briggs’s 
view  of  inspiration,  it  possibly  might  still  be  that.  But  a 
work  so  produced  could  not  possibly  be  considered  as  in¬ 
spired,  according  to  the  biblical  view  of  inspiration,  since  it 
would  make  the  Spirit  of  God  the  author  of  what  is  false,  no 
matter  what  the  motives  of  the  writers  of  the  Pentateuch  may 


*  Matt.  viii.  4;  Heb.  ix.  19. 


91 


have  been.  If  hundreds  of  years  after  the  age  of  Moses  they 
wrote  their  own  ideas  into  this  document,  and  then  palmed 
them  off  as  having  been  given  by  Moses  himself,  the  whole 
thing  is  a  fraud;  and  we  cannot,  consistently  with  the  perfect 
rectitude  and  truthfulness  of  God,  credit  His  Spirit  with  such 
work.  Nor  does  it  in  the  least  relieve  the  matter  to  call  it  a 
“ pious  fraud!'  The  question  is,  could  an  inspired  writer  de¬ 
liberately  deceive  ?  And  therefore  there  is  a  general  demand 
among  the  higher  critics  for  a  reconstruction  of  the  doctrine 
of  inspiration.  The  higher  criticism  cannot  well  use  its  meth¬ 
ods  on  a  divine  text.  It  insists  on  treating  the  Bible  like  any 
other  human  production. 

These  results  of  the  higher  criticism  have  been  reached  by 
means  of  a  very  subtle,  minute,  and  profound  investigation  of 
the  language  and  literature  of  the  Pentateuch,  a  process  of  ex¬ 
perts,  so  deep  and  searching,  they  inform  us,  that  not  only  are 
men  of  an  ordinarily  liberal  education  unable  to  comprehend 
it;  but,  what  is  still  more  curiously  wonderful,  that  they  them¬ 
selves,  with  their  immense  learning,  are  not  able  to  make  it 
plain  to  the  best  scholars  outside  of  their  own  number. 

It  is  claimed  that  we  ought  to  have  confidence  enough  in  the 
higher  critics  to  accept  their  conclusions  as  true,  since  they  are 
experts  in  these  matters.  The  only  difficulty  about  this  is, 
that  the  critics  do  not  agree,  and  we  know  that  experts  are 
the  worst  pathologists  in  the  world,  and  are  suspected  of  kill¬ 
ing  more  patients  than  the  ordinary  practitioners. 

Dr  Briggs  assures  us,  indeed,  that  one  can  accept  the  results 
of  this  criticism  and  still  be  a  good  Presbyterian,  loyal  to  both 
Scripture  and  Confession.  And  it  will  be  agreed  to  by  all  that, 
while  it  may  seem  impossible  for  one  holding  such  views  to 
continue  longer  to  be  a  Presbyterian,  to  say  nothing  more,  yet 
this  question  must  ultimately  be  decided  on  what  is  the  real 
honest  truth  in  the  matter.  And  if  it  can  be  shown  that  these 
destructive  results  are  true  then  they  must  and  will  be  accept¬ 
ed,  and  Presbyterians  will  not  be  behind  their  fellow-Christians 
of  other  communions  in  accepting  them, 

If  what  has  been  regarded  as  the  most  trustworthy  history 
of  antiquity,  distinguished  from  all  contemporaneous  literature 


92 


by  its  matchless  purity,  elevation  and  majesty,  can  be  shown 
to  be  false,  and  if  it  can  be  made  clear  that  the  grand  heroes 
whose  examples  have  given  inspiration  to  the  men  and  women 
of  many  centuries  are  only  the  fanciful  creations  of  a  fertile 
oriental  brain,  much  and  deeply  as  we  may  mourn  the  loss,  we 
must  adjust  our  thoughts  and  faith  to  that  state  of  things. 

When  entering  on  this  study,  one  is  astonished  at  learning 
that  the  critics  have  discovered  only  facts  and  difficulties  which 
lia\  e  been  known  for  at  least  a  hundred  years.  Nothing  new 
confronts  them.  Eichhorn,  whom  they  are  so  fond  of  quoting, 
had  in  his  possession  all  the  facts  which  they  have,  and  yet  he, 
in  spite  of  those  facts,  most  ably  defended  the  Mosaic  author¬ 
ship  of  the  Pentateuch.  * 

But  the  critics  have  changed  their  position  in  relation  to  the 
old  facts,  and  have  concluded  to  use  new  methods  and  investi¬ 
gate  the  Biblical  compositions  on  the  basis  of  a  new  hypothesis. 
Phis  hypothesis  rests  on  a  series  of  conjectures,  evolved  from 
the  instincts  of  the  critics,  and  directed,  shaped  and  applied  as 
their  fancies  may  dictate.  They  take  the  simple  and  connected 
narrative  of  the  Pentateuch,  and,  according  to  their  conjectural 
rules  in  regard  to  expression  and  style,  cut  it  up  into  small 
fragments,  ti  anspose  and  rearrange  them  until  the  composition 
is  so  mixed  up  that  it  has  more  the  appearance  of  a  crazy  quilt 
than  of  anything  else.  Having  arbitrarily  assumed  that  cer¬ 
tain  words  and  forms  of  expression  belong  exclusively  to  cer¬ 
tain  writers,  they  divide  the  Pentateuch  on  the  basis  of  that 
assumption.  When,  therefore,  the  partition  has  been  made, 
they  find,  naturally  enough,  that  it  corresponds  exactly  with 
the  conjectural  theory. 

bo  certain  are  they  of  the  correctness  of  this  hypothesis  that 
it,  having  assigned  a  certain  fragment  to  one  author,  they  hap¬ 
pen  to  discover  some  word  or  peculiarity  in  it,  which  they  have 
befoie  decided  to  be  the  exclusive  property  of  another  author, 
the  verse,  or  section,  containing  it,  is  likely  to  be  declared  an  in¬ 
terpolation,  and  must  therefore  be  transferred  to  its  proper  place. 


*  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  §§  3-11. 


93 


This  illustrates  the  method  by  which  these  destructive  con¬ 
clusions  concerning  the  Pentateuch  are  reached. 

But  these  conclusions  thus  reached  are  in  the  highest  degree 
improbable. 

It  is  impossible  to  determine  anything  with  certainty  about 
the  style  and  peculiarities  of  an  author  from  single  words 
and  short  sentences.  No  author  in  any  age  of  the  world  has 
either  had  a  monopoly  of  certain  words  and  expressions,  as 
against  all  others,  or  been  confined  to  their  use.  It  is  an  un¬ 
warrantable  assumption  that  a  Hebrew  writer  in  ancient  times 
could  express  his  thoughts  in  only  one  form.  The  theory  rea¬ 
sons  throughout  on  a  low  and  misleading  plane,  and,  by  means 
of  uncertain  guesses,  makes  (divisions  and  difficulties  where 
really  none  exist.  To  show  that  I  am  not  overstating  the  mat¬ 
ter  let  me  cite  the  application  of  these  critical  processes  to  the 
14th  Chapter  of  Genesis: 


We  are  told  ....  that  this  chapter  is  derived  from  a 
different  source  fiom  those  which  precede  and  tollow,  because 
it  does  not  contain  the  least  hint  of  the  wickedness  of  the  men 
of  Sodom  ’  and  because,  conversely,  the  author  of  Chapters  18 
and  19  knows  nothing  whatever  of  the  conquest  of  the  five  cit¬ 
ies,  nor  of  the  rescue  of  their  inhabitants  by  Abraham.  It  is 
also  distinguished  from  the  other  chapters  by  marked  linguistic 
peculiarities,  and  forms  a  part  of  the  general  history  of  nations, 
unlike  other  narratives  about  Abraham.” 

But  here  the  doctors  differ.  Dillman  thinks  that,  “  since,  in 
other  respects  than  those  alluded  to,  it  agrees  with  other  por¬ 
tions  of  Genesis  in  language,  and  also  contains  references  to 
other  sections  as  well  as  explanatory  glosses,  it  must  be  re¬ 
garded  as  a  very  old  story,  which  has  been  incorporated  by  one 
of  the  three  narrators,  J,  E,  or  P.  Elohim  in  v.  18  would  point 
to  E  or  P,  and  since  this  section  does  not  agree  with  P’s  or¬ 
dinary  mode  of  describing  such  things,  nor  with  the  language 
peculiar  to  P,  therefore  it  is  to  be  assigned  to  E.  Yahwe,  in 
v.  22,  is  probably  an  interpolation.  The  redactor,  however, 
added  to  the  original  form  of  the  story  such  explanatory  re¬ 
marks  as  are  found  in  vv.  2,  3,  7,  &c.,  and  worked  into  it  vv. 


94 


17-20,  which  can  only  have  been  written  by  a  member  of  the 
Kingdom  of  Judah,  whereas  E  belonged  to  the  northern  King¬ 
dom.  Kuenen,  on  the  other  hand,  calls  this  a  fragment  of  a 
post-exilic  version  of  Abraham’s  life  worked  by  the  redactor, 
and  asserts  categorically  that  it  does  not  belong  to  J  E,  from 
which  it  differs  in  point  of  form,  besides  being  excluded  by 
Chapter  18.  Neither  can  it  be  taken  from  P,  although  con¬ 
taining  some  of  P’s  characteristic  words,  for  it  falls  outside 
the  scope  of  that  work  and  is  written  in  a  wholly  different 
style.”  * 

This,  we  are  soberly  told,  is  scientific  scholarship,  the  results 
of  which  must  not  be  disputed.  But  such  a  method  of  criticism 
suggests  the  query  rather,  whether  the  results  of  it  are  not 
worthy  more  of  ridicule  than  respect. 

But  again,  wholly  unmindful  of  the  different  conditions,  and 
the  different  intent  in  and  for  which  they  were  enacted,  the 
critics  create  positive  contradictions  between  the  different 
codes  of  the  Pentateuch,  when,  in  view  of  all  the  circumstances, 
a  unity  can  readily  be  traced  through  them  all,  and  sufficient 
reasons  given  for  their  differences  and  for  their  origin  at  the 
times  indicated  in  the  document.  If  we  concede  the  existence 
of  three  different  codes  of  laws  in  the  Pentateuch,  their  differ¬ 
ences  can  be  more  readily  adjusted  on  the  basis  of  the  tradi¬ 
tional  view  than  on  that  of  the  higher  criticism.  If  we  allow 
our  minds  to  be  carried  along  by  the  simple  narrative,  it  will 
readily  occur  to  us  that  the  first  stratum  of  laws,  given  three 
months  after  the  Exodus,  contains  the  “  rough  sketch  ”  of  the 
legislation  of  the  coming  theocratic  government;  that  the 
second  stratum  of  laws  were  given  by  Jehovah  to  the  Hebrews 
as  the  permanent  code  of  theocratic  rule  in  the  wilderness,  and 
that  the  third  stratum  was  a  popular  presentation  of  this  theo¬ 
cratic  law,  given  forty  years  later,  just  before  entrance  into 
Canaan,  and  specifically  adapted  to  the  agricultural  life  on 
which  they  were  about  to  enter.  This  perfectly  natural  view 
of  the  matter  gives  unity  and  consistency  to  the  whole  docu- 


*  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  pp.  320,  321. 


95 


tnent.  Nor  is  it  so  difficult  to  snow  that  the  form  of  the 
narrative  is  a  credible  one. 

It  lies  as  a  strong  presumption  against  the  higher  criticism 
that  it  creates  divisions  where  harmony  really  exists.  Any 
fair  theory  is  bound  to  adopt  an  interpretation  of  a  document 
which  is  in  harmony  with  the  facts  and  claims  of  the  document 
itself,  if  that  interpretation  can  be  shown  to  be  at  all  reasona¬ 
ble.  That  the  Pentateuch  can  be  reasonbly  interpreted  in 
harmony  with  its  own  claims,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  this 
has  been  the  belief  of  God’s  people  for  3,000  years,  and  has 
commended  itself  to  a  large  number  of  ripe  scholars,  during  all 
that  time.  It  is  open  to  the  higher  critics  to  find,  by  all  fair 
means,  a  better  solution  of  difficulties  if  possible,  but  they  have 
so  multiplied  and  exaggerated  the  difficulties  as  to  discredit 
the  methods  they  employ. 

It  ought  to  occur  to  the  higher  critics  that  truth  is  simple, 
clear  as  light,  and  easily  made  intelligible  to  ordinary  people  ; 
and  that,  if  they  are  burdened  with  a  great  truth,  it  is  incum¬ 
bent  on  them  to  exhibit  this  truth  to  the  Church  and  the 
world,  in  all  its  simplicity;  and  especially,  since  this  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  faith,  to  make  it  plain  by  Scripture  proof.  As  Presby¬ 
terians  we  believe  in  settling  everything  by  an  appeal  to  the 
Word  of  God,  the  “  infallible  truth  ”  and  “  divine  authority  ” 
of  which  are  evidenced  by  “  the  consent  of  all  the  parts .”  Our 
Confession  states  :  “  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of 
Scripture  is  Scripture  itself ;  and,  therefore,  when  there  is  a 
question  about  the  true  and  full  sense  of  any  Scripture  (which 
is  not  manifold,  but  one)  it  may  be  searched  and  known  by 
other  places  that  speak  more  clearly.”  * 

On  the  face  of  it,  the  Scriptures  testify  strongly  against  the 
results  of  this  criticism;  but  if  we  are  in  error  about  that,  the 
critics  ought  to  point  out  the  places  in  Scripture  which  make 
their  view  more  clear.  Again,  it  weighs  strongly  against  the 
probable  truthfulness  of  these  critical  results  that  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  contains,  not  only  a  revelation  from  God  to  his  people, 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  i.  Sec.  9. 


96 


but  is  the  record  by  which  that  revelation  is  communicated  and 
certified  to  them.  Hence  it  is  that  this  portion  of  Scripture  is 
spoken  of  in  the  Bible  as  the  testimony  of  Jehovah,  the  right¬ 
eousness  of  which  is  everlasting,  which  is  the  heritage  of  his 
people,  and  so  very  sure  that  it  may  be  implicitly  trusted.' * 
This  certainly  cannot  be  affirmed  of  a  record  so  faulty  that 
even  the  learned  critics  are  not  able  to  determine  the  exact 
residuum  of  truth  in  it.  Such  testimony  cannot  be  very  sure, 
and  it  is  scarcely  conceivable  that  the  infinitely  good  and 
truthful  God  would  have  embodied  it  in  so  deceptive  a  form, 
especially  since  it  was  so  necessary  to  have  it  plainly  under¬ 
stood. 

But  further  the  theory  of  the  higher  criticism  is  not  con¬ 
sistent  with  itself.  If  Moses  lived  in  a  rough  and  cruel  age, 
as  the  critics  affirm;  if  he  was  not  a  conspicuous  and  grand 
figure  in  the  history  of  Israel,  but  simply  the  semi-barbarous 
chieftain  of  a  horde  of  uncivilized  people,  and  if  but  few  if  any 
laws  came  really  from  his  hands,  then  there  could  have  been 
neither  reason  nor  motive  for  his  compatriots  of  a  later  age  to 
seek  the  authority  of  his  name  for  the  enforcement  of  laws  and 
customs.  If  Moses  did  not  make  the  grand  position  and  gain 
the  commanding  influence  for  himself  by  the  conspicuous  part 
which  he  played  at  the  beginning  of  the  Jewish  nation,  as 
recorded  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  could  be  no  commendation  of  a 
statute  to  have  his  name  appended  to  it. 

Moreover,  the  narrative  of  the  Pentateuch  proceeds  in  a  way 
so  simple,  straightforward,  and  apparently  so  truthful,  and 
with  such  accuracy  of  minute  detail  in  the  delineation  of  history, 
biography,  incidents,  experiences,  customs,  that  really  no  one 
but  a  contemporary,  personally  familiar  with  the  life  and  cir¬ 
cumstances  of  the  people,  could  have  written  it.  Let  any  one 
sit  down  and  read  consecutively  the  last  four  books  of. the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  with  an  unbiased  mind,  and  he  will  come  to  the  almost 
irresistible  conclusion  that  the  events  and  laws  contained 
therein  were  written  down  from  time  to  time  on  the  spot  as  they 


*  Psalm  19:  7;  78:  5;  119:  3I,  III,  144. 


97 


occurred  and  were  delivered.  Had  the  scribe,  who  is  supposed  to 
have  drawn  up  the  Pentateuch  in  the  timesof  Josiah,  Ezra,  or 
some  other  distant  post-Mosaic  period,  been  even  mare  learned 
than  our  higher  critics,  he  could  not  have  been  so  exactly  true 
to  Israelitish  and  Egyptian  life.  If  he  really  did  that,  his  lit¬ 
erary  aptitude  was  marvelous  beyond  all  experience. 

Herodotus  was  no  mean  historian  for  his  day,  and  is  at  pres¬ 
ent  coming  into  favor  again  with  the  critics.  He  lived  about 
the  time  of  Ezra,  but  it  is  well  known  that  his  account  of 
Egyptian  life  contains  many  inaccuracies.  He  was  too  far  re¬ 
moved  in  time  to  picture  the  details  of  life  correctly. 

The  Pentateuch  is  the  product  of  a  contemporary,  and  since 
the  personality  of  Moses  prevades  the  whole,  and  the  docu¬ 
ment  bears  the  stamp  of  his  character,  it  points  unerringly  to 
him  as  the  veritable  author.  He  was  the  one  man  of  the  time 
so  trained,  and  so  placed  by  divine  Providence,  as  to  be  best 
fitted  to  perform  such  a  literary  task.  He  had  the  best  educa¬ 
tion  which  the  most  enlightened  nation  then  afforded.  He 
lived  at  a  time  when  there  was  a  high  degree  of  literary  cul¬ 
ture  both  in  Egypt  and  Syria,  and  when  a  set  of  beautifully 
formed  Semitic  letters,  suitable  for  such  a  literary  work,  had 
been  invented.  Such  a  combination  of  favorable  circumstances 
did  not  exist  in  those  post-Mosaic  periods  to  which  the  critics 
would  assign  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch.  And  yet  in  the 
face  of  all  this,  the  critics  deny  that  the  Pentateuch  was  pro¬ 
duced  in  the  one  age  when  every  condition  favored  its  produc¬ 
tion,  and  that  it  originated  from  the  one  man  who  was  in 
every  way  most  qualified  to  be  its  author.  These  facts  of  his¬ 
tory  justly  throw  grave  doubts  on  the  correctness  of  the  con¬ 
clusions  of  the  critics. 

When  the  writer  of  a  document  relates  facts  which  are  found 
to  be  in  perfect  harmony  with  the  contemporaneous  life,  cus¬ 
toms  and  incidents  of  the  people  concerning  whom  he  writes, 
showing  that  he  had  an  accurate  acquaintance  with  those 
matters  of  which  he  treats,  his  writings  become  invested  with 
the  highest  degree  of  historical  credibility.  And  when  the 
statements  which  he  makes  concerning  the  people  of  whom  he 


-  n 

9° 

writes,  are  further  corroborated  by  the  history  and  traditions 
of  other  peoples,  especially  if  of  hostile  peoples,  then  that 
credibility  rises  to  a  degree  of  probability  which  is  not  very 
different  from  certainty. 

A  high  deg  ree  of  credibility  must  be  accorded  to  the  writ¬ 
ings  of  the  Pentateuch  from  its  minutely  truthful  representa-  * 
tions  of  the  contemporaneous  life  of  the  Hebrew  people  ;  and 
when,  now,  the  ever-accumulating  facts  brought  to  light  by 
modern  researches  in  Syria,  along  the  Euphrates  Valley,  and 
especially  in  Egypt,  corroborate  the  correctness  of  the  things 
narrated  in  the  Pentateuch,  it  becomes  invested  with  a  degree 
of  probability  which  gives  assurance  of  truthfulness.  The 
Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  is  thus  seen  to  be  sup¬ 
ported  by  the  best  canons  of  historical  criticism.  No  wonder 
the  higher  critics  are  as  silent  as  the  grave  about  recent  dis¬ 
coveries  in  Asia  and  Egypt.  These  discoveries  completely 
overturn  their  conjectures.  The  spades  used  on  those  ancient 
fields  constantly  bring  to  light  new  facts  which  confirm  the 
exact  truthfulness  of  Old  Testament  history. 

An  instructive  instance  of  this  is  furnished  by  some  recently 
discovered  facts  to  which  Professor  Sayce,  of  Oxford,  has  called 
attention.  The  higher  critics  have  uniformly  declared  that  the 
Melchisedek  of  Genesis  is  a  myth.  But,  now,  writings  of  this 
very  Melchisedek  have  been  dug  up  on  the  shores  of  the  Nile, 
in  which  he  speaks  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem  of  which  he  was 
the  prince/'  And  thus  the  14th  chapter  of  Genesis  is  shown  to 
be  not  legend,  as  the  critics  affirm,  but  veritable  history. 

Yet,  in  the  face  of  all  this  testimony,  and  in  spite  of  all  prob¬ 
abilities  to  the  contrary,  the  critics,  with  whom  Dr.  Briggs 
takes  his  stand,  deny  the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch. 
The  voice  of  history  must  be  silenced,  the  testimony  of  the 
Scriptures,  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles  must  be  discredited,  that 
the  conjectures  which  the  critics  have  evolved  from  their  own 
consciousness  may  be  regarded  as  inerrant. 

But  Dr.  Briggs  tells  us  that  the  conclusions  of  the  higher 


*  Public  Opinion,  December,  1891. 


99 


criticism  are  approved  by  consensus  of  the  scholars  who  are 
experts  in  this  matter. 

he  has  given  us  the  names  of  147  biblical  scholars  as  wit¬ 
nesses  in  favor  of  his  views.  It  is  difficult  to  see  how  the 
opinions  of  these  scholars  can  be  allowed  to  influence  our 
judgment  in  the  matter  before  us  in  any  way.  It  is  no  new 
thing  for  biblical  scholars  in  European  universities  to  take 
erroneous  views  of  Holy  Scripture.  The  only  new  thing  about 
it  is  that  these  names  should  be  cited  as  authority  in  a  court 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  In  that  list  of  147  names  there 
are  some  evangelicals,  but  we  must  take  the  term  evangelical 
in  a  very  broad  sense  respecting  most  of  them.  Some  names, 
like  F.  H.  Kruger,  C.  H.  H.  Wright,  and  P.  Ray  Palmer,  clearly 
ought  not  to  be  in  that  list,  for  they  do  not  hold  the  divisive 
critical  theory.  Certainly  thirty-four  of  these  scholars  do  not 
believe  in  the  supernatural  in  the  Bible  at  all,  and  they  are 
the  great  leaders  of  the  school  of  higher  criticism.  For  in¬ 
stance,  Kuenen  says  that  they  ‘‘form  a  conception  of  Israel’s 
religious  development  totally  different  from  that  which,  as 
any  one  may  see,  is  set  forth  in  the  Old  Testament,  and  sketch 
primitive  Christianity  in  lines  which  even  the  acutest  reader 
cannot  recognize  in  the  New.”*  Again  he  states:  “  So  long 
as  we  derive  a  separate  part  of  Israel’s  religious  life  directly 
from  God,  and  allow  the  supernatural  or  immediate  revelation 
to  intervene  in  even  one  single  point,  so  long  also  our  view  of 
the  whole  continues  to  be  incorrect,  and  we  see  ourselves 
necessitated  to  do  violence  to  the  well-authenticated  contents 
of  the  historical  documents.  It  is  the  supposition  of  a  natural 
development  alone  which  accounts  for  all  the  phenomena.”  t 
The  presence  of  the  supernatural  in  the  Bible,  in  the  form 
of  miracles  and  predict ive  prophecy,  is  to  these  scholars  prima 
facie  evidence  of  the  untrustworthiness  of  the  narratives  in 
which  they  occur.  They  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that,  when 
Jesus  claimed  to  be  the  Messiah,  in  whom  the  Old  Testament 
writings  and  prophecies  are  fulfilled,  He  made  a  mistake.  A 
sound  exegesis,  say  these  critics,  of  which  Jesus  was  ignorant. 


*  Modern  Review,  1880,  p.  463. 
f  Prophets  and  Prophecy,  p.  585. 


IOO 


shows  that  there  are  no  such  prophecies  in  the  Old  Testament. 
G.  C.  Workman  declares  that  there  is  no  specific  prophecy  of 
Christ  in  the  Old  Testament.  Five  of  the  147  names  are  Uni¬ 
tarians,  17  are  Jews,  and  nearly  all  the  others  do  not  hold  to 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scripture  as  taught  in  our  Standards, 
while  a  number  of  them  do  not  believe  in  any  inspiration  at  all 
Dr.  Driver  defines  inspiration  to  be  nothing  more  than  “  spirit¬ 
ual  insight.” 

Even  such  a  moderate  man  as  Dillmann  does  not  believe  in 
the  historic  truth  of  Genesis.  In  the  5th  Edition  of  his  Com¬ 
mentary  on  Genesis,  p.  2 1 5,  he  says,  on  the  history  of  Abraham, 
that  “  it  is  now  well  understood  that  these  narratives  concerning 
the  Patriarchs  do  not  belong  to  the  realm  of  exact  history,  but 
to  that  of  legend.”  On  the  same  page,  and  the  following,  he 
quotes  Popper  as  saying  that,  “  The  stories  of  the  Patriarchs 
are  derived  from  Nature  Myths; ”  Noeldeke  and  Stade:  “The 
Patriarchs  were  never  in  Canaan;”  and  Hitzig:  “  that  these  nar¬ 
ratives  are  altogether  fabulous.” 

He  explains  the  destruction  of  Korah,  Dathan  and  Abiram, 
as  narrated  in  Numbers  16,  by  saying  that  Moses  threw  them 
alive  into  a  hole  which  he  had  made  in  his  tent,  and  destroyed 
about  200  of  the  rebellious  by  fire. 

If  these  scholars,  then,  are  any  authority  on  the  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  Scripture,  we  must  go  very  much  further  than  Dr. 
Briggs  would  have  us  go;  for  if  their  opinions  are  of  any 
weight,  we  shall  really  have  no  Bible  left.  They  are  wise 
above  all  that  is  written,  and  the  witticism  of  Sydney  Smith 
aptly  fits  them  all:  “  Their  forte  is  science ,  and  their  foible  omni¬ 
science .”  All  the  leaders  of  this  criticism  in  Europe  acknowl¬ 
edge  fully  that  their  criticism  is  the  diametrical  opposite  of 
the  unanimous  teaching  of  the  New  Testament.  If  a  Protes¬ 
tant  professor  in  Continental  Europe  who  teaches  this  theory 
should  assert  that  his  teaching  about  the  Pentateuch  is  agree¬ 
able  to  the  teaching  of  the  New  Testament,  he  would  be 
laughed  out  of  his  chair.  In  regard  to  all  these  critical 
scholars,  we  may  well  heed  the  warning  of  Paul:  “  O  Timo¬ 
thy,  keep  that  which  is  committed  to  thy  trust,  avoiding  pro¬ 
fane  and  vain  babblings,  and  oppositions  of  science  falsely  so- 


IOI 


•called:  which  some,  professing,  have  erred  concerning  the 
faith.”* 

The  questions  involved  here  cannot  be  decided  by  the  con¬ 
clusions  reached  by  these  biblical  scholars  whom  Dr.  Briggs  has 
cited  as  witnesses,  but  must  be  determined  by  the  Presbyterian 
view  of  the  Scripture  as  set  forth  in  our  standards. 

It  would  be  amply  sufficient  to  offset  this  list  of  names  sim¬ 
ply  by  the  authority  of  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament.  But  then  it  is  well  to  remember  that  there  are  many 
eminent  biblical  scholars  who  utterly  reject  this  critical  the¬ 
ory  as  unsafe  and  unsound,  and  not  warranted  by  facts. 

The  list  given  here  is  only  partial,  and  might  be  greatly  in¬ 
creased.! 


*  i  Tim.  vi.  20,  21. 
f  Prof.  A.  H.  Sayce,  Oxford. 

Principal  Geo.  C.  M.  Douglass,  Glasgow. 

Principal  Alfred  Cave,  Hackney  College. 

Prof.  James  Robertson  (  The  Early  Religion  of  Israel,  1S92). 

Prof.  C.  H.  H.  Wright  (Introd.  to  the  O.  T. ,  1890). 

Prof.  John  Kennedy  (A  Popular  Argument  for  the  Unity  of  Israel ,  1891). 
Prof.  John  Forbes  (  The  Servant  of  the  Lord  in  Israel,  xl.-lxvi.,  1890). 

Rector  F.  Watson  (  The  Law  and  the  Prophets — Hulsean  Lecture  for  1882). 
Prof.  Stanley  Leathes  ( The  Law  in  the  Prophets,  1891). 

Very  Rev.  R.  Payne-Smith  ( The  Mosaic  Authorship  and  Credibility  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch,  1869). 

James  Sime,  F.  R.  S.  E.  (  The  Kingdom  op  all  Israel,  1S83). 

Prof.  Robert  Watts  (The  Newer  Criticism ,  etc.,  1882). 

Principal  Rainy  (The  Bible  and  Criticism,  1878). 

Bishop  A.  C.  Hervey  (The  Books  of  Chronicles  in  Relation  to  the  Penta- 
< tench,  etc.,  1892). 

Bishop  C.  J.  Ellicott  (Christus  Comprobator ,  1892).  f> 

Rev.  Henry  Hayman,  D.  D.  (“Prophetic  testimony  to  the  Pentateuch. 

Bib.  Sac.,  1892). 

Pastor  Fr.  Roos  (Die  geschichlichkeit  des  Pentateuchs,  1883). 

Adolf  Zahn  (Das  D enter onomium,  1890). 

Eduard  Bohl  (Zum  Gesetz  und  zum  Zeugniss ,  1883). 

Pastor  G.  Schumann  (Die  WellJuiusenche  Pentateuchtheorie,  1892). 
Bredenkamp  (Gesetz  und  Propheten,  1881). 

R.  S.  Poole  (“Date  of  the  Pentateuch — Theory  and  Facts, "Coni.  Review,  1887). 
Conder  (“  Ancient  Men  and  Modern  Critics,”  Cont.  Review,  1887). 
Edersheim  (Prophecy  and  History  in  Relation  to  the  Messiah,  Warburton  Lec- 

itures,  1880-84). 

Waller  (“  Is  Genesis  a  Compilation?”  Theological  Monthly,  1891). 

Pastor  Naumann  (Das  Ente  Buch  der  Bibel,  1890). 

Prof.  William  H.  Green  (Moses  and  the  Pentateuch  Vindicated). 

Prof.  E.  Cone  Bissell  (The  Pentateuch). 

Vos  (Mosaic  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch  Codes,  1886). 

Stebbins  (A  Study  of  the  Pentateuch,  1881). 

S.  C.  Bartlett  ( Sources  of  History  w  the  Pentateuch ,  Stone  Lecture,  1882). 
Rabbi  I.  M.  Wire  (Pronaos  to  Holy  Writ,  1891). 

Prof.  C.  M.  Mead  (Romans  Dissected,  1891). 

Lias  (“  Wellhausen  on  the  Pentateuch,”  in  the  Theological  Review ,  1890). 


102 


In  addition  to  these  there  are  worthy  of  mention  such 
American  scholars  as  Drs.  W.  J.  Beecher,  John  S.  Davis,  C. 
M.  Hemphill,  C.  M.  Mead,  W.  W.  Moore,  W.  H.  Jeffers,  W. 
M.  McPheters,  Stephen  Yerkes,  T.  N.  Chambers,  Howard 
Osgood,  Ira  M.  Price  and  John  Dewitt,  all  of  whom  are  as 
sound  in  the  faith  as  they  are  eminent  in  scholarship. 

It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  some  of  the  ablest  German 
scholars  are  treating  the  higher  criticism  with  unsparing  ridi¬ 
cule,  and  speak  of  its  conclusions  as  absurd,  ridiculous  and  im¬ 
possible.  The  pastors  of  Germany,  in  view  of  the  deadening 
influence  this  criticism  has  on  the  spiritual  life  of  the  people, 
are  almost  solidly  arrayed  against  it,  and  do  no  longer  read 
the  books  of  these  professors. 

Indeed,  it  is  an  open  secret,  that,  in  Germany,  the  higher 
criticism,  so  far  as  the  Old  Testament  is  concerned,  is  now  a 
dead  issue.  It  is  entirely  unproductive.  The  rationalistic 
critics  there  are  now  centering  their  destructive  methods  on 
the  New  Testament. 

There  is  a  very  large  number  of  scholars  in  the  departments 
of  ethnology,  comparative  religion,  archaeology  and  explora¬ 
tion  in  Bible  lands,  men  of  broad  minds  and  extensive  learn¬ 
ing,  who  repudiate  the  destructive  results  of  the  higher  criti¬ 
cism,  and  declare  that  the  ascertained  facts  in  their  various 
fields  of  labor  bear  favorable  testimony  to  the  credibility  of 
Old  Testament  history,  and  especially  that  of  the  Pentateuch.* 

In  truth,  the  theory  of  the  higher  criticism  is  wholly  inade¬ 
quate  to  arrive  at  just  and  fair  conclusions  in  reference  to  the 
Holy  Scriptures.  It  is  unscientific  in  that  it  ignores  some  of 
the  most  important  facts  involved,  especially  the  personal  pres¬ 
ence  of  Almighty  God  with  the  Hebrews,  as  their  Guide,  Law¬ 
giver,  Counselor  and  Friend,  the  one  stupendous  fact,  which 
stands  out  conspicuously  above  all  other  facts,  and  exerted  an 
influence  so  potent,  not  only  on  the  people  of  Israel,  but  on  the 
entire  world,  that  it  has  not  yet  spent  its  force.  An  abundance 
of  credible  evidence  proves  this  personal  presence,  so  that  to 


*  Pentateuchal  Criticisms,  pp.  368-398. 


io3 


set  it  aside  in  the  investigation  of  the  documents  which  were 
produced  under  the  influence  and  inspiration  of  that  Gracious 
Presence  is  unpardonable.  But  the  higher  criticism  asserts 
dogmatically  that  the  Bible  must  be  investigated  like  any  hu¬ 
man  production.  In  a  modified  sense  that  may  be  granted. 
Yet,  since  we  have  shown  that  the  Scripture  is  the  product  of 
the  double  authorship  of  God  and  man,  in  which,  however,  the 
Divine  is  everywhere  predominant  and  supreme,  the  entire  ig¬ 
noring  of  the  divine  element  in  the  study  of  the  Book  is  some¬ 
thing  worse  than  a  blunder.  Dr.  Howard  Osgood  has  well 
said:  “  If  the  higher  criticism,  as  now  defined  by  a  living  writer, 
means  criticism  only  of  the  human  side  of  the  Bible,  its  in¬ 
competency  and  incompletehess  are  self-confessed,  unless  the 
Bible  is  only  a  human  book.  It  would  decide  fundamental 
points,  and,  in  the  hands  of  its  chief  disciples,  claims  to  decide 
fundamental  points,  by  considering  only  the  human  side  oi 
the  Bible.”*  Once  admit  the  Divine  element  and  the  Divine 
Presence  to  their  proper  place  in  the  theory  of  investigation, 
and  difficulties  will  either  disappear  or  be  vastly  minimized, 
and  the  Pentateuch  will  be  seen  to  be  a  harmonious  unit,  con¬ 
sistent  with  itself  and  with  the  entire  Scripture. 

2.  By  the  same  divisive  method  the  higher  critics  have,  in 
their  judgment,  reached  the  certain  conclusion  that  the  book  of 
Isaiah  is  made  up  of  a  heterogeneous  medley  of  the  productions 
of  various  authors,  most  of  which  have,  by  some  clever  scribe, 
been  arbitrarily  assigned  to  our  prophet. 

Eichhorn  carried  the  separatist  theory  so  far  that  he  divided 
the  prophecy  into  eighty-five  distinct  oracles,  which  he  attrib¬ 
uted  to  many  different  authors  and  times.  Ewald,  whose  an¬ 
alysis  Dr.  Cheyne  judges  not  to  be  excessive,  traced  the  hands 
of  at  least  seven  authors  in  the  book  of  Isaiah,  and  called  the 
principal  author  of  the  last  part  the  “  Great  Unknown .”  He 
denied  to  Isaiah  the  last  27  chapters,  chapter  xiii.  to  xiv.  13, 
the  first  part  of  chapter  xxi.,  and  chapters  xxxiv.  to  xxxix., 
thus  crediting  him  with  less  than  half  of  the  contents  of  the 


*  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  1892,  p.  541. 


io4 


book  which  bears  his  name.  Presumably,  this  is  the  view  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  since  he  affirms  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of 
half  of  this  prophecy.  Some  of  the  higher  critics,  however, 
assign  the  historical  chapters,  36  to  39,  to  Isaiah,  although 
the  tendency  among  them  is  to  take  more,  rather  than  less, 
from  him. 

The  critics  reach  this  conclusion  concerning  Isaiah  princi¬ 
pally  by  means  of  three  independent  lines  of  argument,  based 
respectively;  first,  on  differences  of  style,  expression  and  con¬ 
struction;  second ,  on  differences  of  subject-matter,  especially 
differences  and  originality  of  theological  ideas;  and  third ,  on 
what  may  be  called  the  historical  situation,  according  to  which 
it  is  assumed  that  a  prophet  must  ^peak  from  his  own  historical 
environment  to  his  contemporaries,  and  that,  strictly  speaking, 
he  cannot  predict  historical  events  of  the  distant  future,  nor 
found  a  promise  on  events  which  are  to  occur  at  some  future 
time. 

It  should  be  stated  here  that  this  criticism  is  a  purely  nega¬ 
tive  one,  based  entirely  on  considerations  which  are  subjective 
to  the  critics,  on  their  mere  impressions,  wholly  unsupported, 
as  we  shall  see,  by  historical  evidence  of  any  kind.  Yet  the 
critics  accuse  all  those  who  differ  from  them,  in  this  view  of 
Isaiah,  of  narrowness,  of  theological  prejudice,  and  of  a  want 
of  conscience.  Dr.  Cheyne  charges  the  orthodox  with  per¬ 
verseness  of  heart  in  resisting  the  conclusions  of  this  criticism, 
and  yet  states  it  as  a  fact  to  be  regretted,  that  “  we  are  left 
wholly  to  conjecture  in  determining  Isaiah’s  literary  work.”  * 
But  may  not  the  orthodox  be  excused  for  refusing  to  abandon 
a  view  of  Scripture,  which  has  been  sacredly  held  by  many 
1  generations  of  God’s  people,  for  a  mere  conjecture ;  and 
further,  express  their  regret  that  those  who  have  obtained 
commanding  positions  in  the  Church  as  teachers,  should  not 
only  receive,  but  insist  on  teaching,  conjectures  in  place  of  the 
truth  ? 

Nothing  need  be  said  here  in  regard  to  the  first  two  lines  of 


*  Article  Isaiah ,  Encyclopedia  Britannica. 


argument,  which  have  reference  to  style  and  theological  ideas 
respectively.  It  is  admitted  by  the  critics  that  the  entire  book 
is  pervaded  by  the  characteristics,  the  thoughts,  the  aim  and 
spirit  of  Isaiah.  They  say  that  the  disputed  parts  were 
written  by  his  disciples  who  were  imbued  with  his  spirit,  and 
having  his  writings  before  them,  tried  to  imitate  his  style,  and 
used  his  words,  his  forms  of  expression  and  modes  of  thought. 
After  such  an  admission,  it  cannot  be  so  very  difficult  to  con¬ 
cede  that,  so  far  as  style  and  contents  are  concerned,  Isaiah 
himself  wrote  it. 

The  one  argument,  which  is  absolutely  conclusive  with  the 
higher  critics,  rests  on  the  pre-supposition  that  the  prophet 
has  his  vision  limited  by  the  contemporaneous  circumstances 
of  his  own  times;  that  he  cannot  transport  himself  to  occupy 
a  future  point  of  view,  and  from  it  narrate  events  which 
have  no  immediate  connection  with  his  own  historical  situa¬ 
tion. 

Accordingly,  Isaiah  could  not  have  written,  for  instance, 
the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  his  book,  since  the  writers 
of  them,  seemingly,  occupied  a  position  one  hundred  and 
seventy  years  in  advance  of  our  prophet  at  Babylon,  when 
Israel  was  in  captivity,  and  relates  events  which  grew  out  of 
those  historical  environments. 

Says  one  of  these  critics:  “  If,  in  any  other  book ,  you  saw  the 
name  of  Cyrus,  you  would  say  at  once  that  the  book  was  not 
written  before  the  time  of  Cyrus.  Then  you  must,  in  consist¬ 
ency ,  say  so  here.”*  And  this  reveals  precisely  what  the  critics 
mean  when  they  insist  that  in  our  investigations  of  the  Bible, 
we  must  treat  it  exactly  as  we  would  any  other  book.  We  must 
exclude  the  divine  element  from  the  process  and  handle  it 
merely  as  the  production  of  fallible  men.  “A  prophetic  book 
must,  in  consistency ,  be  treated  as  if  it  were  not  prophetic  ”  ; 
and  it  must  not  be  conceded  that  a  holy  prophet  of  God  can 
obtain  knowledge  of  future  events  in  any  other  way  than  through 
natural  channels. 


*  Introduction  to  the  Bible  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  p.  n. 


lob 

Knobel  says  in  reference  to  the  possibility  of  the  53d  chap¬ 
ter  of  Isaiah  being  a  prophecy  of  Christ:  “  How  could  it,  since 
the  writer  lived  five  hundred  years  before  Christ  ?  ”* 

Dr.  Delitzsch  has  well  observed:  “Modern  criticism  finds 
itself  hampered  between  two  prejudices  :  there  is  no  real 
prophecy;  there  is  no  real  miracle.  This  criticism  calls  itself 
free,  but  upon  closer  examination  it  is  found  in  a  dilemma.  In 
this  dilemma  it  has  two  magic  words  with  which  it  fortifies  it- 
self  against  every  impression  of  historical  evidence.  As  it  trans¬ 
forms  the  histories  of  miracles  into  traditions  and  myths  so  it 
either  transforms  the  prophecies  into  predictions  after  the  event, 
or  brings  the  predicted  events  into  such  close  connection  with 
the  prophet,  that  to  foresee  them  did  not  require  inspiration 
but  only  combination. ”+ 

The  more  evangelical  wing  of  the  critics  would  still  credit 
the  prophet  with  a  certain  kind  of  inspiration,  which  is,  after 
all,  no  real  inspiration,  but  only  a  quickening  of  the  prophet’s 
mind  or  consciousness,  which  enabled  him  clearlv  to  see  the 
drift  of  things,  and  so  point  to  a  combination  of  events  as  about 
to  happen.  In  this  he  was  likely  to  be  correct,  since  it  was 
only  the  logical  outcome  of  what  was  occurring  about  him;  but, 

,  being  human,  he  might  also  be  mistaken. 

Dr.  Driver  in  his  last  book,  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  edited  in 
this  country  under  his  own  name,  affirms,  without  qualification, 
that  “  pre-exilic  prophecies  are  uniformly  accommodated  to  the 
occasion  out  of  which  they  arise.”  “  To  base  a  promise  upon 
a  condition  of  things  not  yet  existent ,  and  without  any  point  of 
contact  with  the  circumstances  or  situation  of  those  to  whom 
it  is  addressed,  is  alien  to  the  genius  of  prophecy.’ 'J 

The  possibility,  therefore,  of  predicting  future  events,  which 
are  not  immediately  connected  with  the  prophet’s  own  histor¬ 
ical  situation,  must  be  rigidly  excluded  on  the  a  priori  assump¬ 
tion  that  it  is  unscientific  and  contrary  to  sound  principles  of 


•r  Introduction  to  Isaiah,  Bible  Commentary,  p.  10. 
t  Introduction  to  Dr.  Delitzsch’s  Commentary  on  Isaiah. 
X  Introduction  to  Literature  of  the  O.  T. ,  pp.  200,  210. 


psychology.  On  this  ground  it  is  denied  that  Isaiah  is  the  au¬ 
thor  of  more  than  half  the  book  which  bears  his  name. 

I  cannot  do  more  here  than  call  attention  to  the  far-reach¬ 
ing  consequences  of  this  dictum  of  the  higher  critics  on  the 
trustworthiness  of  the  Bible  as  the  Word  of  God.  The  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  rests  largely  on  the  historic  facts  of  prophecy. 
The  birth,  the  death  and  resurrection  of  Christ  were  subjects 
of  predictive  prophecy,  and  this  theory  will  inevitably  involve 
in  doubt  these  great  truths  of  our  faith.  But  the  hypothesis  is 
unfounded  and  cannot  be  admitted.  The  inter-relations  which 
we  find  between  the  different  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  but 
more  especially  between  the  two  Testaments,  are  beyond  the 
power  of  any  good  man  to  construct  from  the  drift  of  his  own 
environment,  however  much  his  mind  may  have  been  quickened 
by  the  Divine  Spirit.  They  were  distinctly  revealed  to  the 
prophet  by  the  Lord. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  this  matter  under  the 
charge  on  prophecy.  We  would  here  only  call  attention  to 
the  fact  that  the  book  of  Isaiah  itself  furnishes  an  instance 
of  predictive  prophecy  which  overthrows  the  hypothesis.  In 
chapters  eight  and  ten,  which  are  both  conceded  to  be  Isaiah’s, 
it  is  definitely  predicted  that  Assyria,  after  devastating  Samaria, 
would  bring  Judah  also  to  the  brink  of  a  similar  peril,  but  would 
then  be  hurled  back  and  be  itself  overthrown. 

This  prophecy  could  not  have  grown  out  of  the  historical 
situation  of  the  times.  It  was  given  during  the  early  years  of 
Ahab’s  reign,  when  Assyria  was  not  only  a  friendly  power,  but 
was  Judah’s  ally.  Thirty  years  after  it  had  its  exact  fulfilment 
in  the  Assyrian  invasion,  and  King  Hezekiah  was  strengthened 
by  it  courageously  to  hold  out  to  the  last  against  the  attack  and 
demand  of  the  Assyrian  monarch.  The  a  priori  assumption  of 
the  critics  utterly  breaks  to  pieces  on  a  substantial  fact  like  that. 

Both  the  authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  entire  book  of 
Isaiah  have  been  demonstrated  by  authors  whose  scholarship 
will  not  be  disputed  by  even  the  highest  of  the  higher  critics." 

^Alexander  on  Isaiah.  The  Servant  of  the  Lord,  by  Rev.  Joseph  Forbes, 
D.D.  An  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,  Rev.  Ch.  H.  Wright,  D.D. 
Rev.'  George  Rawlinson,  in  Pulpit  Commentary.  Dr.  W.  Kay,  Introduction 
to  Bible  Commentary. 


The  book  itself  gives  evidence  of  its  essential  unity  on  the 
basis  of  the  thoughts  and  forms  of  expression  found  in  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch.  The  second  part,  rising  far  above  the  first  in  concep¬ 
tion,  is  the  necessary  complement  of  it,  and  the  four  historical 
chapters,  thirty-six  to  thirty-nine,  form  the  chain  which  firmly 
unites  the  two. 

Since  the  captivity  had  been  foretold,- a  prophecy  predicting 
the  restoration  was  also  needed  to  comfort  God’s  people  in  the 
trials  of  discipline,  to  wean  them  from  idolatry  to  a  spiritual 
service  of  God,  to  give  them  true  views  of  the  divine  omni¬ 
science  and  omnipotence,  and  in  due  time  to  be  the  means  of 
inducing  Cyrus  to  issue  the  edict  of  the  return.  And  the  fact 
that  it  influenced  Cyrus  to  order  the  return  of  the  Jews  argues  * 
strongly  in  favor  of  the  Isaianic  character  of  the  prophet. 

As  the  writer  of  the  disputed  parts  moves  in  the  circle  of 
Palestinian  thoughts,  customs  and  images,  and  amidst  the 
hills,  valleys,  towns,  and  by  the  seaside  of  Palestine,  and 
gives  a  description  of  the  condition  of  the  Jewish  people  which 
■could  never  have  been  true  of  them  during  any  time  of  the 
exile,  he  could  not  have  been  a  prophet  of  the  exile.  The 
Jews  also  were  accustomed  to  use  great  care  in  preserving  the 
names  of  their  prophets  and  public  men.  The  names  of  proph¬ 
ets  who  wrote  only  a  chapter  or  two  have  been  carefully  trans¬ 
mitted  to  us.  In  view  of  this  fact  it  is  certainly  inconceivable 
that  the  noblest  body  of  prophecy  in  Scripture,  dealing  in  the 
grandest  truths,  and  inspiring  the  sublimest  hopes,  was  written 
by  a  prophet,  or  a  number  of  prophets,  whose  names  were 
allowed  to  drop  into  utter  oblivion  by  these  very  Jews  to  whom 
it  proved  to  be  such  an  unfailing  source  of  help  and  comfort. 

The  external  historical  evidences  strongly  support  the  gen¬ 
uineness  and  authenticity  of  the  prophecy.  For  about  2,500 
years,  Isaiah  has  been  held  to  be  the  author  of  the  entire  book 
which  bears  his  name,  with  a  single  dissenting  voice  in  the 
1 2th  Century.  The  Septuagint,  at  about  300  B.  C.,  assigned 
the  whole  book  to  him.  That  points  back  to  the  decision  of 
the  great  Synagogue,  and  makes  it  morally  certain  that  those 
astute  Jewish  scholars,  Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  whose  judgment 


109 

in  this  matter  must  certainly  be  regarded  as  in  the  highest  de¬ 
gree  trustworthy,  held  the  same  view. 

No  Jew  before  Christ,  or  for  many  centuries  after  him,  ever 
expressed  a  doubt  in  respect  to  the  authorship  of  Isaiah. 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Nahum,  and  Zephaniah  quote  from  the  dis¬ 
puted  chapters,  and  to  affirm,  as  some  of  the  higher  critics  do 
that  Isaiah  quoted  from  them,  only  makes  manifest  the  des¬ 
perate  straits  in  which  they  find  themselves  to  maintain  their 
conjectures. 

Christ  and  the  Apostles  evidently  coincided  with  the  opinion, 
then  current,  that  the  entire  book  was  the  product  of  Isaiah, 
and  this  should  have  great  weight  with  all  Christian  people. 

Enough  has  now  been  said  to  show  that  the  conclusions 
reached  by  the  higher  criticism  on  the  authorship  of  Isaiah  are 
not  trustworthy,  being  contradicted  by  the  contents  of  the 
book  itself,  and  by  the  entire  body  of  historical  evidence. 
Isaiah  is  one  of  those  holy  prophets  mentioned  in  Hebrews 
who  had  been  sawn  asunder  by  men,  who,  owing  to  an  erro¬ 
neous  a  priori  assumption,  are  unable  to  understand  his  great 
prophecy. 

It  only  remains  now  to  call  special  attention  to  the  testi¬ 
mony  of  Christ  and  the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  on  both 
points  of  this  question,  and  put  on  it  the  emphasis  which  it  de¬ 
serves.  The  issue  is  presented  and  must  be  met. 

The  higher  critics  quite  generally  object  to  this  appeal  to 
Christ  and  the  Apostles  on  the  ground  that  their  opinion  can¬ 
not  be  allowed  to  have  any  weight  on  the  question  ot  a  scien¬ 
tific  criticism  of  the  Holy  Scriptures.  But  since  they  spake 
with  final  authority  by  the  Spirit  on  all  questions  of  faith,  this 
cannot  be  regarded  as  sound  reasoning. 

Kuenen  says:  “  The  exegesis  of  the  writers  of  the  New  Tes¬ 
tament  cannot  stand  before  the  tribunal  of  science.  We  must 
either  cast  aside  as  worthless  our  dearly  bought  scientific 
method,  or  must  forever  cease  to  acknowledge  the  authority 
of  the  New  Testament  in  the  domain  of  the  exegesis  of  the 
Old.  Without  hesitation,  we  chose  the  latter  alternative.”"' 


*  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  p.  4S7, 


I  IO 


Again  he  says:  “  It  is  the  common  conviction  of  all  the 
writers  of  the  New  Testament,  that  the  Old  Testament  is  in¬ 
spired  of  God,  and  is  thus  invested  with  divine  authority.  The 
remark,  made  as  it  were  in  passing,  in  a  passage  of  the  fourth 
Gospel,  that  ‘  the  Scripture  cannot  be  broken,’  is  assented  to  by 
all  the  writers  without  distinction.  In  accordance  with  this  they 
ascribe  divine  foreknowledge  to  the  Israelitish  prophets.  And 
far  indeed  from  limiting  this  foreknowledge  to  generalities,  and 
thus  depriving  it  of  all  its  importance,  they  refer  us  repeatedly 
to  the  agreement  between  specific  prophetical  utterances  and 
single  historical  facts,  and  have  no  hesitation  in  declaring  their 
conviction,  both  that  the  prophet  spoke  of  these  specific  facts, 
and  that  they,  under  God’s  direction,  occurred  in  order  that  the 
word  of  the  prophet  might  be  fulfilled.”  It  is  unnecessary  to 
support  these  statements  by  quoting  passages;  such  passages 
are,  as  every  one  knows,  very  numerous. 

here,  then,  is,  at  the  very  beginning,  a  first  objection  which 
the  New  Testament  places  in  our  way.  Its  judgment  concern¬ 
ing  the  origin  and  nature  of  the  prophetical  expectations,  and 
concerning  their  relation  to  the  historical  reality,  may  be  re¬ 
garded  as  diameti'ically  opposed  to  ours.  * 

Herman  L.  Strack,  one  of  the  more  moderate  disciples  of  the 
higher  criticism,  states:  “  As  regards  passages  from  the  New 
Testament,  we  must  protest  against  their  use  for  the  twofold 
reason,  that  if  they  prove  the  Mosaic  authorship,  all  other 
proofs  are  superfluous,  and  are  a  derogation  from  the  authority 
of  our  Lord,  and  that  the  use  of  such  proofs  removes  the  whole 
question  from  the  historical  and  critical  domain. ”f 

We  admit  it  as  true  that,  if  the  testimony  of  a  half  a  dozen 
first-class  witnesses  be  admitted,  all'the  fine  work  of  expert 
detectives  will  be  entirely  superfluous.  Dr.  Sanday,  one  of  the 
latest  converts  to  the  higher  critical  school,  and  one  of  the 


*  Kuenen,  Prophets  and  Prophecy  in  Israel,  pp.  448,  ff. 
f  Schaff-Herzog  Encyclopedia:  Pentateuch. 


Ill 


most  evangelical  in  spirit,  expresses  his  regret  that  an  appeal 
has  been  made  to  Christ  at  this  stage  of  the  controversy.  He 
thinks  it  ought  to  have  been  delayed  until  the  critics  could 
have  finished  their  investigations.  Yet  he  admits  that,  since 
the  authority  of  Christ  is  at  stake,  the  appeal  to  Him  is  in  or¬ 
der,  and  must  be  candidly  met.*  We  should  say  so.  Is  there 
any  evidence  in  regard  to  any  point  of  our  faith  which  is  more 
reliable  than  positive  statements  of  the  Bible  itself?  Do  mod¬ 
ern  critics  have  a  more  correct  understanding  of  the  Scriptures 
than  Christ  and  the  Apostles  ?  May  not  Christians  always 
make  this  final  appeal  to  Christ  in  respect  to  any  theological 
and  biblical  question  on  which  He  has  spoken  ? 

Since  Christ  is  responsible  for  the  whole  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  we  will  confine  our  consideration  largely  to  His  views 
on  the  question.  Attention  has  already  been  called  to  the  fact 
that  Christ  referred  to  the  laws,  the  book  and  the  productions 
of  Moses  in  which  he  wrote  of  Him.  He  uses  the  name  of 
Moses  some  eighteen  times;  and  most  of  those  references  are 
personal  and  not  merely  to  a  book  by  that  name.  He  and 
the  writers  of  the  New  Testament  also  quote  from  all  parts  of 
the  book  of  Isaiah,  and  assign  those  from  the  disputed  sec¬ 
tions  to  that  prophet,  equally  with  those  from  the  confessedly 
Isaianic  parts.t  And  these  citations  also,  again,  were  not  from 
a  book  so  much  as  from  the  personal  prophet.  Jesus  said, 
in  respect  to  a  portion  of  Isaiah  which  some  of  the  critics 
deny  to  him,  “These  things  said  Isaiah,  when  he  saw  His 
glory,  and  spake  of  Him.”  X 


**  Oracles  of  God,  Chapter  8. 

t  Compare  Matt.  3:  3,  Luke  3:  4,  John  1:  23,  with  Isa.  40:  3;  Matt.  4:  14, 
with  Isa.  9:  1;  Matt.  8:  17,  with  Isa.  53:  4;  Matt.  12:  17-21,  with  Isa.  42:  1-4; 
Matt.  13:  14,  15,  John  12:  39,  Acts  28:  25,  27,  with  Isa.  6:  9,  10;  Matt.  15:  7,  8, 
Mark  7:  6,  7,  with  Isa.  29:  13;  Luke  4:  17,  18,  with  Isa.  61:  1-3;  John  12:  38, 
Rom.  10:  16,  with  Isa.  53:  1;  Acts  8:  2S-33,  with  Isa.  1:  1,  and  53:  7,  8;  Rom. 
9:  27,  with  Isa.  10:  20-23;  Rom.  10:  20,  with  Isa.  65:  1;  Rom.  15:  12,  with  Isa. 
11 :  1,  10. 

X  John  12:  41. 


It  has  occurred  to  the  critics  that  it  is  incumbent  upon  them 
to  show  why,  apparently  at  least,  they  know  more  about  the 
Word  of  God  than  did  Christ.  They  assign  two  reasons: 

First ,  that  He  accommodated  His  way  of  speaking  to  the 
current  belief  of  the  times.  He  knew  that  Moses  was  not  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  Isaiah  wrote  less  than  half 
the  book  which  bears  his  name;  when  He  called  them  the  au¬ 
thors  of  those  compositions  respectively,  He  merely  repeated 
the  false  opinions  which  had  currency  among  the  people. 

On  this  point  Dr.  Briggs  says:  “  The  question  is,  shall  we 
interpret  the  words  of  Jesus  by  the  opinions  of  His  contempor¬ 
aries  ?  This  we  deny.  Jesus  was  not  obliged  to  correct  all 
the  errors  of  His  contemporaries.”* 

But  this  is  scarcely  credible.  It  is  contrary  to  the  character 
of  Christ.  It  was  his  habit  to  correct  error  wherever  he  met  it, 
no  matter  what  odium  it  might  bring  on  Him.  Thus  He  cor¬ 
rected  the  erroneous  views  of  the  Jews  on  the  law  of  the  Sab¬ 
bath  t  and  on  the  question  of  marriage  and  divorce.  X 

Dr.  Manly  has  well  said  that  at  the  time  of  Christ  the  Jews 
held  the  Old  Testament  to  be  “  the  Word  of  God,  not  only 
their  God,  but  the  God  of  all  the  earth,  the  only  living  and 
true  God.  This  universal  belief  of  the  Jewish  people  in  these 
writings  could  not  be  overlooked  by  one  who  came,  like  our 
Saviour,  as  a  teacher,  and  the  great  teacher  sent  from  God. 
It  was  necessary  for  Him  either  to  contradict  that  belief  if  not 
true,  or  to  sanction  it  if  true.  Upon  such  a  question  He  could 
not  be  neutral.  The  Gospel,  the  final  embodiment  of  divine 
truth,  to  be  presented  to  the  world  by  Jesus,  the  only  begot¬ 
ten  Son  of  God  himself,  could  not  be  planted  in  the  midst  of 
unrebuked  error;  least  of  all  could  it  be  built  upon  error  as 
its  basis.  And  that  the  New  Testament  Gospel  is  built  upon 
the  Old,  and  assumes  it  throughout  as  its  basis,  its  forerunner, 


*  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,  p.  130. 
f  Mark  ii.  27,  28. 

\  Matt.  xix.  3-6;  Mark  x.  6,  7. 


its  original  and  foundation,  is  unquestioned  and  unquestion¬ 
able.”  * 

And  then  also,  upon  the  supposition  mentioned,  there  would 
have  been  no  need  for  Christ  to  make  the  same  assumption  in 
the  presence  of  Satan.  He  resisted  each  one  of  the  tempta¬ 
tions  by  a  quotation  from  the  Pentateuch,  giving  them  as  God's 
words.  Satan  at  least  was  not  troubled  with  bibliolatry.  And 
since  he  was  quite  active  as  far  back  as  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and 
must  have  known  of  the  alleged  fraud,  he  might  have  retorted 
on  Christ  that  those  texts  were  not  the  Word  of  Jehovah,  but 
were  merely  put  in  His  mouth  for  histrionic  purposes.  But 
Satan  felt  those  words  to  be  the  very  words  of  the  Spirit  of 
truth.  Christ  is  also  to  be  credited  with  foreknowledge,  and 
He  must  have  foreseen  that  by  means  of  such  false  opinions, 
his  Church,  some  time  or  other,  would  be  greatly  disturbed, 
and  could  not,  therefore,  have  allowed  such  a  falsehood  to  pass 
unchallenged.  He  had  all  the  courage  needed  for  the  vindi¬ 
cation  of  the  truth. 

The  right  view  of  this  matter  is,  that  Christ  accepted  the 
opinions  of  the  Jews  of  His  day  in  reference  to  the  Pentateuch 
for  the  reason  that  He  knew  them  to  be  true,  and  that  He  in¬ 
tended  to  endorse  them  and  thus  settle  for  His  disciples  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  finally  and  forever.  And  in  view 
of  the  destructive  conclusions  reached  by  the  higher  critics,  it 
is  high  time  that  the  Church  should  insist  on  recognizing  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  teaching  of  Christ  in  this  matter. 

Nor  does  this  interfere  with  the  most  thorough  investiga¬ 
tion  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  still  remains  for  the  Christian 
scholar  by  the  most  searching  criticism  to  determine  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  Pentateuchal  codes  to  one  another;  the  extent  to 
which  editorial  supervision  and  glosses  appear;  how  far  the 
biblical  writers  availed  themselves  of  previously  existing  doc¬ 
uments,  and  whether  it  is  possible  for  us  to  trace  them  by  any 
fair  tests;  the  basis  on  which  a  true  biblical  chronology  should 


*  The  Bible  Doctrine  of  Inspiration,  by  Dr.  Basil  Manly,  p.  115. 


be  constructed,  and  many  other  similar  questions  pertaining 
to  the  condition  and  arrangement  of  the  biblical  books. 

Secondly ,  that,  owing  to  the  limitations  under  which  He  was 
placed  by  the  Incarnation,  he  was  actually  ignorant  of  the  facts 
in  the  case.  Dr.  Driver  leans  to  the  theory  of  accommodation, 
but  asks  the  question  whether  Christ  is  to  be  credited  with  „ 
knowledge  of  this  kind.45-  Prof.  W.  R.  Harper  says:  “If  there 
is  an  analysis,  and  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,  the 
New  Testament  authorities,  among  others  Jesus  Himself,  who 
seem  to  say  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch,  or,  at  any  rate, 
to  imply  this,  either  must  have  been  ignorant  of  the  facts  in 
the  case,  or,  knowing  them,  must  have  (i)  consciously  taught 
falsely,  or  (2)  accommodated  themselves  to  the  literary  suppo¬ 
sitions  of  their  day.  Each  of  these  possibilities  is  attended 
with  difficulties. ”f  Dr.  Sanday  shrinks  in  horror  from  the  idea 
that  Christ  could  have  accommodated  Himself  to  current  opin¬ 
ions  when  He  knew  them  to  be  false,  and  prefers  to  think  that, 
owing  to  the  limitations  put  on  Him  by  His  humanity,  He 
did  not  know.  J  This  is  manifestly,  also,  the  view  of  Dr. 
Briggs;  for  he  states  :  “Those  who  understand  the  doctrine  of 
the  humiliation  of  Christ  find  no  more  difficulty  in  supposing 
that  Jesus  did  not  know  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  than 
that  He  did  not  know  the  day  of  His  own  advent.”  §  He 
made  a  mistake  when  He  credited  Moses  with  being  the  author 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  Isaiah  of  the  entire  book  which  bears 
his  name.  He  never  had  the  advantage  of  being  trained  in 
the  intricacies  of  a  conjectural  biblical  criticism.  He  did  not 
know  the  Scriptures.  The  critical  research  of  this  nineteenth 
century  only  has  made  known  the  literary  nature  and  texture 
of  the  Scriptures,  and  Christ  as  a  man  could  not  know  them  in 
His  day.  And  it  is  intimated  that  unless  we  accede  to  that 
position  we  deny  the  full  reality  of  our  Lord’s  humanity. 

But  that  does  not  follow.  Christ  was  perfectly  sinless.  He 

*  Preface  to  Introduction  to  Old  Testament  Literature,  pp.  14,  15. 

f  Hebraica,  Oct.,  1888,  p.  70. 

X  The  Oracles  of  God,  Chapter  8. 

§  The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason,  p.  129. 


received  at  His  baptism  the  Holy  Spirit  in  all  His  fullness,  and 
in  Him  both  the  human  and  Divine  natures  co-existed  ;  and  it 
is  impossible  for  us  to  say  how  much  He,  as  man,  might  know 
under  those  conditions.  As  the  God-man  He  did  exercise 
superhuman  powers,  as  when  He  walked  on  the  sea,  miracu¬ 
lously  increased  a  few  loaves  of  bread  and  two  small  fishes,  knew 
of  tile  piece  of  money  which  was  in  the  mouth  of  a  fish  and  sent 
Peter  for  it,  and  had  a  perfect  knowledge  of  what  was  in  man 
beiOie  any  thoughts  were  uttered.  Since  these  things  were 
tine  oi  Him,  it  cannot  amount  to  a  denial  of  Plis  real  humanity 
"u  hen  we  ciedit  Him  with  a  full  knowledge  of  all  questions  per¬ 
taining  to  the  Sciiptures.  The  Gospels  give  us  good  reasons 
for  believing  that  the  human  soul  of  Christ  had  such  a  present 
illumination  that  His  knowledge  was  universal. 

but  did  not  He  state  that  He  was  ignorant  of  the  time  when 
a  certain  day  should  come,  which  was  known  to  none  but  the 
bather  ?  And  if  his  knowledge  was  limited  in  that  particular, 
why  may  we  not  also  suppose  that  He  was  likewise  ignorant 
of  matters  pertaining  to  the  Old  Testament  history?  But  it 
should  be  observed  that  conscious  ignorance  of  a  certain  event 
is  an  entirely  different  thing  from  being  in  evi'ov  on  other 
matters.  And  then  the  contrary  inference,  rather,  is  to  be 
made  from  his  admission  of  ignorance  on  that  one  point,  if 
that  is  really  what  He  meant  to  say.  bfe  had  made  the  im¬ 
pression  on  His  disciples  that  He  possessed  all  knowledge.  He 
claimed  no  less  than  that.  And  it  was  reasonable  for  them 
to  think  that  He  knew  the  exact  time  of  that  portentous  day 
of  which  He  had  been  speaking  to  them.  But  He  did  not  wish 
to  leave  a  false  impression  on  their  minds.  He  was  the  Teach- 
ci  Ox  truth,  and,  therefore,  when  a  false  inference  was  made 
from  His  remarks,  He  was  compelled  to  say  that  they  must  not 
mistake  His  meaning,  as  the  time  of  that  day’s  coming  was  un¬ 
known  to  Him. 

But  in  His  repeated  references  to  the  writings  of  Moses  and 
Isaiah  He  made  no  such  disclaimer,  in  respect  to  the  limita¬ 
tion  of  His  knowledge,  but  left  the  impression  that  He  had  an 
accurate  acquaintance  with  those  writings. 


1 16 


He  made  it  very  clear,  not  only  that  He  had  a  most  minute 
and  particular  knowledge  of  all  the  events  embedded  in  the 
Old  Testament,  and  was  perfectly  familiar  with  the  very  spnit 
which  actuated  such  men  as  Abraham,  Noah,  Moses,  Davi  , 
and  Isaiah— He  was  Himself  the  subject  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  theophanies;  commissioned  the  prophets  to  teach  His 
truth  in  preparation  for  His  coming  and  the  confirmation  of 
the  Gospel.  They  all  taught  and  wrote  by  His  spirit,  ana  it 
was  a  part  of  His  mission  to  this  world  to  fulfil  every  jot  and 
tittle  of  all  that  was  written  in  both  the  law  and  the  prophets. 
It  is  impossible  to  believe  that  He  did  not  know  the  time  and 
the  manner  of  producing  the  Old  Testament  books,  all  o 
which  are  so  vitally  connected  with  His  mission. 

This  involves  not  only  the  ignorance,  but  the  moral  nature 
of  Christ  as  well.  And  as  Oxford  professors  have  been  re¬ 
ferred  to  in  this  case,  I  will  also  quote  on  this  point  from  a  late 
high  Oxford  authority: 

“But  it  is  not  on  this  account  alone  that  our  Lords  Human 
ignorance  of  the  day  of  judgment,  if  admitted,  cannot  be  made 
the  premise  of  an  argument  intended  to  destroy  His  authority, 
when  He  sanctions  the  Mosaic  authorship  and  historical  trust¬ 
worthiness  of  the  Pentateuch.  That  argument  involves  a  con¬ 
fusion  between  limitation  of  knowledge  and  liability  to  enor  , 
whereas,  plainly  enough,  a  limitation  of  knowledge  is  one 
thing,  and  fallibility  is  another.  St.  Paul  says  that  1  we  know 
in  part,’  and  that  4  we  see  through  a  glass  darkly.’  Yet 
St.  Paul  is  so  certain  of  the  truth  of  what  he  teaches,  as  to  ex¬ 
claim,  ‘If  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach  any  other  Gos¬ 
pel  to  you  than  that  which  we  have  preached  unto  you,  let 
him  be  accursed.’  St.  Paul  clearly  believed  in  his  own  infalli¬ 
bility  as  a  teacher  of  religious  truth;  and  the  Church  of  Christ 
has  ever  since  regarded  his  Epistles  as  part  of  an  infallible  lit¬ 
erature.  But  it  is  equally  clear  that  St.  Paul  believed  his 
knowledge  of  religious  truth  to  be  limited.  Infallibility  does 
not  imply  omniscience,  any  more  than  limited  knowledge  im¬ 
plies  error.  Infallibility  may  be  conferred  on  a  human  teach¬ 
er  with  very  limited  knowledge  by  a  special  endowment  pre- 


serving  him  from  error.  When  we  say  that  a  teacher  is  infalli¬ 
ble,  we  do  not  mean  that  his  knowledge  is  encyclopaedic,  but 
merely  that,  when  he  does  teach,  he  is  incapable  of  propound¬ 
ing  as  truth  that  which,  in  point  of  fact,  is  not  true. 

“  Now  the  argument  in  question  assumes  that  Christ  our 
Lord,  when  teaching  religious  truth,  was  not  merely  fallible, 
but  actually  in  serious  error.  If  indeed  our  Lord  had  believed 
Himself  to  be  ignorant  of  the  authorship  or  true  character  of 
the  book  of  Deuteronomy,  we  may  presume  that  He  would 
not  have  fallen  below  the  natural  level  of  ordinary  heathen 
honesty,  by  speaking  with  authority  upon  a  subject  with  which 
He  was  consciously  unacquainted.  It  is  admitted  that  He 
spoke  as  believing  Himself  to  be  teaching  truth.  But  was  He, 
in  point  of  fact,  not  teaching  truth  ?  Was  that  which  He  be¬ 
lieved  to  be  knowledge  nothing  better  than  a  servile  echo  of 
contemporary  ignorance  ?  Was  His  knowledge  really  limited 
on  a  subject-matter,  where  He  was  Himself  unsuspicious  of 
the  existence  of  a  limitation  ?  Was  He  then  not  merely  de¬ 
ficient  in  information,  but  fallible;  not  merely  fallible,  but 
actually  in  error?  and  has  it  been  reserved  for  the  criticism  of 
the  nineteenth  century  to  set  Him  right  ?  It  must  be  ac¬ 
knowledged  that  our  Lord’s  statement  respecting  the  day  of 
judgment  will  not  avail  to  sustain  a  deduction  which  supposes, 
not  an  admitted  limitation  of  knowledge,  but  an  unsuspected 
self-deception  of  a  character  and  extent  which,  in  the  case 
of  a  purely  human  teacher,  would  be  altogether  destructive  of 
any  serious  claim  to  teach  substantial  truth. 

“  Nor  is  this  all.  The  denial  of  our  Lord’s  infallibility  in  the 
form  in  which  it  has  come  before  us  of  late  years,  involves  an 
unfavorable  judgment,  not  merely  of  His  intellectual  claims, 
but  of  the  penetration  and  delicacy  of  His  moral  sense.  This 
is  the  more  observable  because  it  is  fatal  to  a  distinction  which 
has  been  projected  between  our  Lord’s  authority  as  a  teacher 
of  spiritual  or  moral  truth,  and  His  authority  when  dealing 
with  those  questions  which  enter  into  the  province  of  historical 
criticism.  If  in  the  latter  sphere  He  is  said  to  have  been  liable 
and  subject  to  error,  in  the  former,  we  are  sometimes  told,  His 


1 18 


instinct  was  invariably  unerring.  But  is  this  the  case  if  our 
Lord  was  really  deceived  in  His  estimate  of  the  book  of  Deu¬ 
teronomy,  and  if,  further,  the  account  of  the  origin  and  com¬ 
position  of  that  book  which  is  put  forward  by  His  censors  be 
accepted  as  satisfactory  ?  Our  Lord  quotes  Deuteronomy  as 
a  work  of  the  highest  authority  on  the  subject  of  man’s  rela¬ 
tions  and  duties  to  God.  Yet  we  are  assured  that  in  point  of 
fact  this  book  was  nothing  better  than  a  pious  forgery  of  the 
age  of  Jeremiah,  if  indeed  it  was  not  a  work  of  that  prophet, 
in  which  he  employed  the  name  and  authority  of  Moses  as  a 
restraint  upon  the  increasing  polytheism  of  the  later  years  of 
King  Josiah.  That  hypothesis  has  been  discussed  elsewhere, 
and  by  others,  on  its  own  critical  merit*.  Here  it  may  suffice 
to  observe,  that  if  it  could  have  been  seriously  entertained,  it 
would  involve  our  Lord  in  something  more  than  intellectual 
fallibility.  If  Deuteronomy  is  indeed  a  forgery,  Jesus  Christ 
was  not  merely  ignorant  of  a  fact  of  literary  history.  His 
moral  perceptions  were  at  fault.  They  were  not  sufficiently 
fine  to  miss  the  consistency,  the  ring  of  truth,  in  a  document 
which  professed  to  have  come  from  the  great  Lawgiver  with  a 
Divine  authority;  while,  according  to  modern  writers,  it  was 
only  the  ‘  pious’  fiction  of  a  later  age,  and  its  falsehood  had 
only  not  been  admitted  by  its  author,  lest  its  effect  should  be 
counteracted.  *  *  *  * 

‘f  Before  us  is  no  mere  question  as  to  whether  Christ’s  knowl¬ 
edge  was  or  was  not  limited;  the  question  is,  whether  as  a 
matter  of  fact  He  taught  or  implied  the  truth  of  that  which  is 
not  true,  and  which  a  finer  moral  sense  than  His  might  have 
seen  to  be  false.  The  question  is  plainly  whether  He  was  a 
trustworthy  teacher  of  religious  no  less  than  of  historical  truth. 
The  attempted  distinction  between  a  critical  judgment  of  his¬ 
torical  or  philological  facts,  and  a  moral  judgment  of  strictly 
spiritual  or  moral  truths  is  inapplicable  to  a  case  in  which  the 
moral  judgment  is  no  less  involved  than  the  intellectual;  and 
we  have  really  to  choose  between  the  infallibility,  moral  no 
less  than  intellectual,  of  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord  on  the  one 
hand,  and  the  conjectural  speculations  of  critics,  of  whatever 
degree  of  critical  eminence,  on  the  other. 


“  Indeed,  as  bearing  upon  this  vaunted  distinction  between 
spiritual  truth,  in  which  our  Lord  is  still,  it  seems,  to  be  an 
authority,  and  historical  truth,  in  which  His  authority  is  to  be 
set  aside,  we  have  words  of  His  own  which  prove  how  truly 
He  made  the  acceptance  of  the  lower  portions  of  His  teaching 
a  preliminary  to  belief  in  the  higher.  ‘  If  I  have  told  you 
earthly  things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  shall  ye  believe  if  I 
tell  you  of  heavenly  things  ?  ’  How  indeed  ?  If,  when  He  sets 
the  seal  of  His  authority  upon  the  writings  of  Moses  as  a  whole, 
and  upon  the  most  miraculous  incidents  which  they  relate  in 
detail,  He  is  really  only  the  uneducated  Jew  who  ignorantly 
repeats  and  reflects  the  prejudice  of  a  barbarous  age,  how  shall 
we  be  sure  that  when  He  reveals  the  Character  of  God,  or  the 
precepts  of  the  new  life,  or  the  reality  and  nature  of  the  end¬ 
less  world,  He  is  really  trustworthy — trustworthy  as  an  Author- 
ity  to  whom  we  are  prepared  to  cling  in  life  and  in  death  ? 
You  say  that  here  your  conscience  ratifies  His  teaching, — that 
the  ‘  enthusiasm  of  humanity  ’  which  is  in  you  sets  its  seal  upon 
this  higher  teaching  of  the  Redeemer  of  men.  Is,  then,  your 
conscience  in  very  truth  the  ultimate  and  only  teacher  ?  Have 
you  anticipated  and  might  you  dispense  with  the  teaching  of 
Christ  ?  And  what  if  your  conscience,  as  is  surely  not  impos¬ 
sible,  has  itself  been  warped  or  misled  ?  What  if,  in  surveying 
even  the  moral  matter  of  His  teaching,  you  still  assume  to  ex¬ 
ercise  a  4  verifying  faculty,’  and  object  to  this  precept  as  an 
ascetic,  and  to  that  command  as  exacting,  and  to  yonder  most 
merciful  revelation  of  an  endless  woe  as  4  Tartarology.  Alas, 
brethren,  experience  proves  it,  the  descent  into  the  Avernus 

of  unbelief  is  only  too  easy.  *  “  * 

“The  man  who  sincerely  believes  that  Jesus  Christ  is  God, 
will  not  doubt  that  His  every  word  standeth  sure,  and  that 
whatever  has  been  sealed  and  sanctioned  by  His  supreme 
authority  is  independent  of,  and  unassailable  by,  the  fallible 
judgment  of  His  creatures  concerning  it.”  * 


*  Liddon  :  The  Divinity  of  Our  Lord,  Lecture  VIII., passim. 


120 


but  \v  c  should  not  fail  to  notice  here  that  it  is  admitted  by 
all  the  radical  critics,  and  also  by  some  of  the  most  evangeli- 
cat  of  the  school,  that  they  do  contradict  Christ  on  an  impor¬ 
tant  point  of  biblical  interpretation;  and,  further,  that  they 
have  the  assuiance  of  affirming-  themselves  to  be  correct  and 
Chiist  in  error  ;  and,  therefore,  ask  Christian  people  to  aban¬ 
don  the  teachings  of  Christ  in  this  respect  and  accept  theirs 
instead.  Thus  from  the  position  of  the  errancy  of  the  written 
Word  we  are  led  necessarily  to  that  of  the  errancy  of  the  In - 
ecu  rate  Word.  This  is  the  issue  before  us,  and  it  is  time  that 
Christian  people  fully  comprehended  the  meaning  of  it. 

The  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  made  known  to  us  as  the  one  in  whom 
“  dwelleth  all  the  fullness  of  the  Godhead  bodily,”  “in  whom 
are  hid  all  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  knowledge  ;  ”  who  is 
“  the  LiSht  of  the  World,”  “  the  Truth  ”  itself,  by  whom  “came 
gi ace  and  truth  ”  ;  who  tells  the  truth  ;  bears  “  witness  to  the 
truth  ”  ;  saves  men  “  through  the  belief  of  the  truth,”  and 
claims  all  those  who  believe  the  truth  as  His  own  children  ; 
who  *s  th e  faithful  and  true  Witness,”  whose  word  is  yea  and 
amen.  Giving  to  the  apostles  the  fullness  of  the  Spirit  of 
Truth,  He  commissioned  them  to  build  the  Church’s  life  and 
faith  on  Him  as  the  Corner-Stone. 

No\v,  it  all  these  high  claims  made  by  the  Scripture  in  behalf 
of  Christ  and  his  apostles  must  be  taken  with  an  allowance;  if 
they  made  false  or  erroneous  statements  in  reference  to  the 
genuineness  of  other  parts  of  Scripture,  there  is  no  certainty 
that  they  have  not  made  similar  false  or  erroneous  statements 
111  ot^er  directions,  and  that  the  arguments  for  the  enforce¬ 
ment  of  faith  and  conduct  which  they  have  based  on  these 
statements  may  not  be  fallacious. 

We  have,  then,  no  more  foundation  whereon  to  build  our  faith 
and  life  with  joyous  confidence,  and  it  is  simply  preposterous 
to  affirm  that  the  Scripture,  thus  constructed,  can  be  a  credit¬ 
able  witness  to  its  own  statements,  and  a  rule  of  faith  and  duty. 

If  plain  and  direct  statements  of  Scripture,  made  by  Christ  and 
the  apostles  themselves,  may  be  regarded  as  not  true,  then 
must  confidence  in  them  as  infallible  teachers  be  lost,  and  the 


I 


I  21 

Presbyterian  position  that  the  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture 
is  the  Supreme  Judge  in  all  questions  of  religion,  in  whose  sen¬ 
tence  we  are  to  rest,  is  effectually  undermined  and  must  be 
abandoned. 

How  the  Scriptures,  thus  mutilated  and  without  any  objec¬ 
tive  authority,  can  be  “  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,”  as  Dr.  Briggs  affirms,  it  is  difficult,  if  not  impossible, 
to  comprehend.  If  such  a  Bible  can  be  that  to  him,  it  can  cer- 
tainly  not  be  an  infallible  rule  to  the  Church  and  ministry  in 
general  ;  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  such  a  view  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  has  never  been  thought  possible  under  our  terms  of  sub¬ 
scription. 

It  may  seem  an  unfair,  yes,  almost  an  unrighteous  thing,  to 
charge  a  Christian  minister  with  contradicting  vital  doctrine, 
merely  because  he  denies  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch, 
and  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  the  book  which  bears  his 
name,  but  when  the  destructive  results  which  are  necessarily 
involved  in  those  innocent-looking  statements,  are  clearly  seen, 
the  matter  assumes  an  altogether  different  aspect.  The  very 
quintessence  of  the  evil  lies  in  this  matter. 

The  theory  of  the  higher  criticism  puts  the  entire  Bible  un¬ 
der  suspicion  and  distrust;  it  cuts  up  the  historical  fabric  in 
which  the  revelations  of  God  have  been  conveyed  to  mankind 
into  small  fragments,  and  throws  them  into  unintelligible  con- 
fusion;  it  makes  the  prophets  of  the  Old  Testament  accessory 
to  the  palming  off  of  a  fabricated  history  on  God’s  people;  it 
makes  inspiration  in  any  true  sense  impossible;  under  the  cover 
of  an  assumed  admiration  for  the  character  of  Christ,  it  puts 
discredit  on  His  testimony  and  that  of  the  New  Testament 
writers  in  their  estimate  of  the  Old  Testament;  it  destroys 
laith,  and  does  not  restore  it;  it  breaks  down  man’s  confidence 
in  the  book  of  God,  and  does  not  build  it  up  again;  and  it 
makes  it  impossible  for  any  one  to  tell  where  and  what  the 
truth  of  God  in  Scripture  is. 

Surely  there  ought  to  be  most  potent  reasons  given  before 
such  a  theory  should  find  acceptance.  But  there  are  absolutely 
no  historical  facts  which  support  it.  All  the  facts  on  which  the 


theory  rests,  and  by  which  its  results  are  reached,  are  found  in 
the  text  by  the  analysis  of  words  and  phrases,  and  are  largely 
created  by  the  theory  itself.  Most  of  these  internal  facts  would 
have  no  existence  at  all  but  for  this  unverified  and  unverifiable 
theory.  All  external  historical  facts ,  the  whole  of  an  unbroken 
tradition,  all  the  testimony  of  a  long  line  of  historical  writers, 
most  of  the  discoveries  made  in  researches  in  Bible  lands,  as 
well  as  all  reason  and  common  sense,  are  against  the  conclu¬ 
sions  of  the  higher  critics.  They  assume  conjectures  to  be 
facts  in  the  first  instance,  and  then  make  them  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  elaborate  arguments,  to  which  they  give  the  high- 
sounding  name,  scientific. 

The  higher  criticism  takes  all  the  meaning  out  of  that  magnifi¬ 
cent  chapter,  which  rightly  stands  at  the  head  of  our  Confession 

m 

of  Faith,  and  which  for  its  forceful  and  correct  setting  forth  of 
the  biblical  doctrine  respecting  the  Holy  Scripture,  has  been 
the  admiration  of  the  Christian  world.  For  if,  in  order  rightly 
to  understand  the  Scripture,  we  must  first  cut  it  to  pieces,  and 
make  of  it  a  patchwork  of  confused  and  miscellaneous  frag¬ 
ments,  and  if  we  must  regard  a  large  part  of  its  history,  and 
many  direct  statements,  not  to  speak  of  other  matters,  as  not 
true  in  fact,  then  our  confessional  statements  respecting  the 
Scriptures  become  simply  absurd.  It  could  not  be  said  that 
the  God  of  truth  is  the  Author  of  such  a  Bible;  that  for  the 
better  preserving  and  propagating  the  truth,  “  He  committed  ” 
the  same  wholly  unto  writing;  that  He  “  immediately  ”  inspired 
it  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  languages,  so  that  the  canonical 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  “  Word  of  God  ” 
written,  and  thus  constitute  the  Holy  Scripture,  the  one  book, 
which,  by  “  the  consent  of  all  the  parts  f  evidences  its  “incom¬ 
parable  excellencies,”  “entire  perfection,”  “infallible  truth,” 
and  “  divine  authority,”  which  has  expressly  set  down  in  it  the 
whole  counsel  of  God,  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  His 
own  glory  and  man’s  salvation,  faith  and  life,  and  made  so  clear 
that  the  unlearned  may  understand  and  believe  it;  furnishes 
its  own  infallible  rule  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  by 
comparing  one  part  with  another;  and  is  the  Supreme  Judge, 


to  which  all  questions  of  religion,  faith,  salvation  and  life,  de¬ 
crees  of  councils  and  doctrines  of  men  and  private  spirits,  arc 
to  be  referred  for  that  final  decision,  and  in  which  we  are  to 
rest.* 

So  entirely  does  our  Confession  regard  the  written  Scripture 
as  the  truthful  word  of  God  in  all  its  parts,  that  it  affirms  that, 
“  By  faith  a  Christian  believeth  to  be  true  whatever  is  revealed 
in  the  word  for  the  authority  of  God,  Himself,  speaking  there¬ 
in.”  f  To  accept  as  true,  therefore,  the  conclusions  of  the 
higher  criticism  means  revolution  of  our  system  of  doctrine. 
It  leaves  us  only  a  spent  Bible.  Is  it  possible  that  the  truth 
at  stake  here  is  not  to  be  considered  essential  ?  It  is  as  essen¬ 
tial  to  our  system  as  the  foundation  is  to  a  temple. 

And  it  is  for  this  reason  that  on  three  occasions  the  General 
Assembly  has  warned  the  churches  to  guard  against  this  crit¬ 
icism,  and  enjoined  the  Presbyteries  to  see  to  it  that  candidates 
for  the  ministry  be  not  subjected  to  its  influence  in  our  the¬ 
ological  seminaries.  Everywhere  it  has  antagonized  the  evan¬ 
gelical  spirit  and  exerted  a  baneful  influence  on  the  faith  of 
God’s  people,  and  blasted  as  with  mildew  the  religious  life.  It 
has  proved  to  be  the  dry-rot  in  the  German  Church,  reducing 
religion  to  a  mere  name.  The  only  hope  of  that  Church  for 
better  things  is  based  on  the  belief  that  this  criticism  is  dying, 
and  that  the  evangelical  spirit  is  reviving. 

And  now  this  higher  criticism  demands  official  recognition 
in  the  great  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States.  It 
seeks  the  cover  of  the  old  blue  banner,  which,  in  its  long  and 
glorious  history,  has  ever  floated  only  over  God’s  inerrant 
Word,  and  the  right  of  recognition  in  the  chairs  of  our  schools 
of  sacred  learning.  And  if  it  should  gain  these  vantage 
grounds  it  will  go  on  its  work  of  instilling  doubt,  of  troubling 
the  Church,  of  undermining  the  pulpit,  and  of  benumbing  the 
evangelical  life  and  spirit  of  the  Church.  It  is  a  dangerous 
error  and  ought  to  be  condemned  by  this  court. 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  i.,  Sections  i,  2,  5,  6,  7,  8,  10. 
f  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  xiv.,  Section  2. 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIEICATION  AFTER  DEATH. 


In  the  sixth  charge  Dr.  Briggs  is  accused  of  teaching  that 
the  sanctification  of  believers  is  not  complete  at  death,  but 
that,  as  the  specification  shows,  it  is  continued  in  what  he  calls 
the  middle  state.  He  admits  the  fact  indicated  in  the  specifi¬ 
cation,  but  denies  that  this  view  is  contrary  either  to  the 
Scripture  or  the  Standards.  Since,  both  in  the  Inaugural  Ad¬ 
dress  and  in  the  evidence  submitted,  he  has  interwoven  this 
doctrine  with  his  views  on  race  redemption, which  is  not  limited 
by  election,  and  with  those  on  the  process  of  redemption  after 
death,  we  will  gain  a  clearer  view  of  the  doctrine,  if  we  con¬ 
sider  for  a  moment  his  opinions  on  these  two  important  sub¬ 
jects.  “  The  Bible,”  he  informs  us,  “  presents  man  in  the  midst 
of  an  original  innocency  and  an  ultimate  perfection.  Sin  is 
only  a  temporary  conditions  .  .  .  “The  Bible  tells  us  of  a 

race  origin,  a  race  sin,  a  race  ideal,  a  race  redeemer,  and  a  race 
redemption.”  * 

“It  comprehends  the  whole  nature  of  man,  his  whole  life 
and  the  entire  race.”  t  The  Bible  knows  of  no  limitations  of 
this  redemption  by  election. 

Dr.  Briggs  cherishes  large  expectations  in  regard  to  the  re¬ 
deeming  work  to  be  done  in  the  world  beyond  the  grave,  and 
“looks  with  hope  and  joy  for  the  continuance  of  the  processes 
of  grace  and  the  wonders  of  redemption  in  the  company  of  the 
blessed.”  X 

■*  » 

It  is  for  us  so  to  broaden  our  view  of  the  divine  love  that,  “if 
life  in  this  world  is  brief,  and  life  in  the  middle  state  is  long, 
we  must  rise  to  the  conception  of  the  love  of  God  as  accom¬ 
plishing  even  greater  works  of  redemption  in  the  middle  state 
than  in  this  world.”  §  * 

He  labors  with  great  earnestness,  on  a  priori  grounds,  so  to 
“  construct  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  infants  and  the 
heathen  in  harmony  with  established  doctrines,”  as  will  enable 

*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  50. 

f  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  51,  55. 

X  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  54,  55. 

Mag.  of  Christian  Literature,  Dec.,  1889,  p.  106. 


him,  in  respect  to  these  classes,  to  affirm  that  they  are  justified 
in  the  middle  state,  since  they  see  Christ  there  for  the  hist 
time,  and  could,  therefore,  not  sooner  exercise  that  faith  in 
Him,  by  which  alone  sinners  are  justified,  “  not  till  then  are 
they  justified,  for  there  can  be  no  justification  without  fan..  l°r 
them  any  more  than  for  others.  The  intermediate  state  is  .o, 
them  a  state  of  blessed  possibilities  of  redemption. 

“He  raises  the  question  whether  any  man  is  inetiievabi} 
lost  ere  he  commits  this  unpardonable  sin,  and  whether  tnose 
who  do  not  commit  it  in  this  world  ere  they  die  are,  by  the 
mere  crisis  of  death,  brought  into  an  unpardonable  state;  and 
whether,  when  Jesus  said  that  this  sin  against  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  unpardonable  here  and  also  hereafter,  He  did  not  imply 
that  all  other  sins  might  be  pardoned  hereafter  as  well  as 

here.”  i* * * § 

“We  are  opening  our  minds,”  he  states,  “to  see  that  the  Re¬ 
deemers  work  upon  the  cross  was  the  beginning  of  a  larger 
work  in  the  realm  of  the  dead,  and  from  His  heavenly  throne 
whence  the  exalted  Saviour  is  drawing  all  men  unto  Himself. ,  t 

Dr.  Briggs  cites,  as  “  excellent  thoughts,”  the  following 
statement  of  Dr.  Dorner,in  reference  to  the  unbelieving  in  the 

middle  state  : 

“But  in  regard  to  those  who  died  unbelieving,  or  not  yet 
believing,  to  them  also  is  the  ground  of  their  souls  lain  bare; 
hence  also  their  impurity,  their  discord  and  alienation  from 
God  is  unveiled.  ...  If,  instead  of  repenting  and  being 
converted,  instead  of  growing  in  self-knowledge  and  knowl¬ 
edge  of  God  as  holy,  and  yet  gracious  in  Christ,  they  prefer  to 
continue  in  evil,  then  the  form  of  their  sin  becomes  more 
spiritual,  more  demoniacal,  in  accordance  with  their  state  from 
which  this  world  recedes  farther  and  farther,  and  thus  it  ripen?, 
for  judgment.”  §  He  maintains  that  the  “  question  we  have  to 
determine  as  Calvinists  is  whether  divine  grace  is  limited  m  its 
operation  to  this  world  of  ours,  whether  the  divine  act  of  re- 

*  Mag.  of  Christian  Literature,  Dec.,  1889,  pp.  no,  in. 

f  Mag.  of  Christian  Literature,  Dec.,  1889,  p.  113. 

J  Andover  Reviews,  Vol.  13,  p.  59- 

§  Whither?  p.  211. 


126 


generation  may  take  place  in  the  middle  state  or  not,  whether 
any  part  of  the  order  of  salvation  is  carried  on  there,  and,  if 
any  part,  what  part.  These  questions  force  themselves  upon 
us  in  connection  with  our  hopes  for  the  salvation  of  infants  and 

heathens.”  * * * § 

He  staces  indeed  that  “  the  Bible  does  not  teach  universal 
salvation,  but  it  does  teach  the  salvation  of  the  world,  of  the 
iace  of  man,  and  that  cannot  be  accomplished  by  the  selection 
of  a  limited  number  of  individuals  from  the  mass.”  f 

Yet  Dr.  Briggs  holds,  that  notwithstanding  this  redemption 
of  the  entire  race,  some  are  “  unredeemed,”  and  that  for  the 
reason  that  they  are  evidently  beyond  the  reach  of  redemption 
by  their  own  act  of  rejecting  it,  and  of  hardening  themselves 
against  it,  and  by  aesce?iding  into  such  depths  of  demoniacal  de¬ 
pravity  m  the  middle  state ,  that  they  vanish  from  the  sight  of 
the  redeemed  as  altogether  and  irredeemably  evil,  and  never 
more  disturb  the  harmonies  of  the  saints.”  X 

These  dangerous  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  set  before  us  in 
Clearer  light  the  matter  which  is  the  subject  of  the  sixth  charge, 
namely:  Progressive  Sanctification  after  death. 

From  what  has  already  been  said,  it  is  clear  that  Dr.  Briggs 
does  not  mean,  by  progressive  sanctification  in  the  middle 
state,  merely  a  progressive  enlargement  of  the  powers  of  our 
being,  a  growing  knowledge  of  God  and  Christ,  and  a  con¬ 
tinual  advancement  toward  a  fullness  of  life  in  all  its  experi¬ 
ences.  If  that  were  his  meaning,  the  Christian  world  would 
agree  with  him. 

What  he  teaches  is  another  thing  altogether.  Dr.  Briggs 
ms  that  the  Christian,  when  he  dies,  goes  into  the  middle 
state  precisely  the  same  person  that  he  was  here  in  the  flesh, 
having  the  same  evil  habits  and  temper,  and  is  defiled  by  sin 
in  the  higher  nature,  so  that  he  is  not  prepared  to  meet  God 

m  judgment,  and  is  unfit,  owing  to  his  sinful  nature,  for  the  life 
and  fellowship  of  heaven.  § 

*  Whither?  p.  221. 

f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  55. 

t  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  '55,  56. 

§  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature,  pp.  112-114. 


127 


Sanctification  has  for  its  object  the  eradication  of  sin  fiom 
the  soul.  When  sin  has  been  entirely  removed,  then  the  soul 
is  completely  holy,  just  as  Jesus  was  holy  even  before  He  was 
born.  A  sinless  being  needs  neither  redemption  nor  sanctifica¬ 
tion.  The  advancement  of  a  sinless  being  in  holy  life  is  not 
sanctification.  In  his  Defense  Dr.  Briggs  stated  that  not  till  the 
day  of  judgment  are  believers  fully  and  forever  fteed  fiom  sin, 
and,  further  on,  that  they  entered  the  middle  state  sinless.  In 
whatever  way  it  maybe  possible  to  reconcile  these  statements, 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  both  in  the  Inaugural  and  in  his 
Defense  before  this  court,  Dr.  Briggs  maintains  that  sanctifi¬ 
cation  in  the  middle  state  is  necessary  to  complete  the  be¬ 
liever's  redemption.  *  They  are  there  to  repent  of  and  mor¬ 
tify  sin.  His  interpretation  of  the  Standards  involves  that. 

Progressive  sanctification  in  the  middle  state  is  to  subdue 
sin  in,  and  eliminate  it  from,  the  higher  nature  of  man.  He 
affirms  that,  “  The  intermediate  state  is  for  all  believers  with¬ 
out  exception,  a  state  for  their  sanctification.  They  are  there 
trained  in  the  school  of  Christ,  and  are  prepared  for  the  Chris¬ 
tian  perfection  which  they  must  attain  ere  the  judgment  day.”  t 

And  it  is  to  be  distinctly  noticed  here,  that  no  objection  is 
raised  against  Dr.  Briggs’s  doctrine  of  sanctification  on  the 
ground  of  its  progressive  character.  We  all  hold  that.  Tie 
objection  lies  against  the  progression  of  it  into  what  he  calls 

the  middle  state. 

Death  does  not  end  the  conflict  in  his  view.  The  weary 
struggle  against  inbred  corruption,  in  which  we  come  so  often 
to  sorrow,  shame  and  remorse  here,  and  of  sinning  and  repent- 
i„g,  must  continue  through  the  long  period  of  the  middle  state. 
Dr.  Briggs  does  indeed  assure  us,  that  “they  are  deli veied 
there  “  from  all  temptations  such  as  spring  from  without,  from 
the  world  and  the  devil.  They  are  encircled  with  influences 
for  good,  such  as  they  never  enjoyed  before.”  *  And  hence 
“  we  may  justly  hold  that  the  evil  that  still  lingers  in  the 
higher  moral  nature  of  believers  will  be  suppressed  and  modi- 

O 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  54- 

|  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature,  Dec.,  ibSg,  p.  H2 
^  Inaugural  Address,  p.  107. 


128 


fied  with  an  energy  of  repentance,  humiliation,  confession  and 
determination,  that  will  be  more  powerful  than  ever  before, 
because  it  will  be  stimulated  by  the  presence  of  Christ  and  His 
saints.”  * * * § 

But  since  life  is  long  in  the  middle  state,  and  brief  in  this 
world,  the  natural  inference  would  seem  to  be  that  the  process 
will  be  slower  there  than  it  usually  is  in  this  life.  Many  Chris¬ 
tians  become  very  Christlike  even  here. 

Dr.  Briggs  illustrates  his  idea  of  sanctification  in  the  next 
world,  by  a  reference  to  Abraham.  In  this  life,  he  affirms,  the 
old  patriarch  lived  on  so  low  a  stage  of  moral  advancement* 
>  that,  did  he  live  now,  we  could  not  receive  him  into  our  families, 
and  might  be  obliged  to  send  him  to  prison  lest  he  should  de¬ 
file  the  community  by  his  example.! 

But  he  states  that  “  when  he  went  into  the  abode  of  the 
dead,  he  held  his  pre-eminence  among  the  departed.  He  made 
up  for  his  defects  in  this  life  by  advancing  in  the  school  of 
sanctification  there  open  to  him.”! 

Where  Dr.  Briggs  gathered  all  this  information  he  has  not 
told  us.  It  is  not  the  teaching  of  Scripture.  The  sterling  piety 
and  moral  character  of  Abraham,  in  his  earthly  life ,  are  com¬ 
mended  in  the  Bible  by  Christ  himself,  for  the  imitation  of 
God’s  faithful  people. 

1  he  reason  which  Dr.  Briggs  gives  for  no  longer  entertaining 
the  accepted  doctrine,  while  helping  us  to  a  still  clearer  under¬ 
standing  of  his  position,  at  the  same  time  shows  how  untenable 
it  is.  He  calls  the  doctrine  that  the  soul’s  final  destiny  is  de¬ 
cided  at  death  a  “  bugbear  which  makes  death  a  terror  to  the 
best  of  men.”§ 

Why  should  a  believer  stand  in  dread  of  a  judgment  at  death 
since,  as  mantled  in  the  perfect  righteousness  of  Christ,  there 
is  no  condemnation  for  him  ?  He  is  reconciled,  a  child  beloved 
of  God  in  Christ,  who  delivers  him  from  that  fear  of  death 
through  which  unbelievers  are  subject  to  bondage  all  their  life- 

*  Magazine  of  Christian  Literature,  Dec.,  1889,  p.  114. 

f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  56. 

\  Inaugural  Address,  p.  57. 

§  Inaugural  Address,  p.  54. 


129 


time,  since  of  God  He  is  made  to  the  Christian  “  wisdom  and 
righteousness  and  sanctification  and  redemption.” 

And  it  is  equally  difficult  to  see  why  a  believer  should  either 
shrink  from  or  become  inactive  at  the  prospect  of  being  im¬ 
mediately  transformed  into  perfect  holiness  at  death.  Christian 
experience  shows  that  such  a  prospect  rather  fills  the  believer's 
heart  with  the  deepest  joy,  and  inspires  him  to  hasten  his  pace 
that  he  may  the  sooner  reach  that  state  of  entire  freedom  from 
sin,  singing  as  he  journeys  on: 

“  Why  should  I  shrink  at  pain  or  woe, 

Or  feel  at  death  dismay  ? 

I’ve  Canaan’s  goodly  land  in  view, 

And  realms  of  endless  day. 

“  There  happier  bowers  than  Eden’s  bloom, 

ATor  sin  nor  sorrow  know', 

Blest  seats!  through  rude  and  stormy  scenes 

I  onward  press  to  you.” 

But  says  Dr.  Briggs  :  “-It  is  unpsychological  and  unethical 
to  suppose  that  the  character  of  the  disembodied  spirit  will  all 
be  changed  in  the  moment  of  death.”  * 

And  this  is  probably  the  real  ground  of  his  objection  to  the 
received  doctrine.  The  fact  has  already  been  referred  to  in  this 
case,  that  Dr.  Briggs,  unconsciously  to  himself  it  may  be,  is  un¬ 
der  the  influence  of  a  philosophical  principle  of  naturalism.  It 
runs  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  through  all  his  writings,  and 
here  he  yields  to  it  so  thoroughly  that  anything  contrary  to  it 
must  not  even  be  supposed  to  be  true.  According  to  this  psy¬ 
chological  and  ethical  principle,  the  transformation  of  a  saint  of 
God  in  the  dying  hour  to  perfect  holiness  must  be  held  to  be  a 
magical  illusion.  But  the  divine  grace  often  works  great  trans¬ 
formations  very  suddenly  which  are  not  at  all  magical  nor 
illusory. 

IHor  the  conversion  of  the  demoniac  spoken  of  in  the  Gospel 
of  St.  Mark,  and  that  of  St.  Paul,  of  Augustine,  of  John  Bun- 
yan,  and  of  “the  wickedest  man  in  New  York,”  involved 
changes  which  were  as  sudden  and  as  great  as  the  transforma¬ 
tion  by  which  the  people  of  Christ  pass,  at  death,  from  their 
sinful  condition  here  to  the  perfect  holiness  of  the  better  world. 
But  such  an  assumed  natural  principle  of  psychology  and  ethics 


*  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  107,  108. 


130 

cannot  be  allowed  to  set  at  nought  the  plain  teaching  of  God’s 
holy  Word. 

The  Scriptural  argument  in  support  of  the  doctrine  assailed 
has  already  been  placed  before  you.  Let  me  state  it  here 
again  as  briefly  as  may  be  consistent  with  clearness. 

Final  destiny  will  be  settled  by  the  issues  of  this  life.  Every 
one  shall  ‘‘receive  the  things  done  in  the  body,  according  to 
that  he  hath  done,  whether  it  be  good  or  bad.”  *  This  state¬ 
ment  of  the  Apostle  Paul  is  abundantly  confirmed  and  illus¬ 
trated  by  the  presentation  which  our  Lord  makes  in  the  25th 
of  Matthew,  of  the  grounds  on  which  men  are  finally  to  be 
judged  ;t  and  by  many  other  statements  of  Scripture. £  When 
therefore  the  earthly  life  ends,  and  the  body  is  laid  aside,  the 
record  on  which  final  destiny  will  be  decided  is  forever  settled. 

Man  began  to  sin  in  the  body.  Christ  became  incarnate, 
had  a  body  prepared  for  Him,  in  order  that  He,  the  second 
Adam,  might  undo,  in  His  bodily  life,  all  the  evils  which  have 
been  brought  on  mankind  by  the  first  Adam.  These  facts 
raise  a  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  belief  that  the  whole 
work  of  Redemption  will  be  complete  for  the  people  of  Christ, 
when  they  quit  their  bodily  existence. 

And  this  presumption  is  greatly  strengthened  by  the  entire 
economy  of  grace  under  the  Gospel.  No  hope  of  salvation  is 
held  out  in  the  Word  of  God  to  those  who  put  off  faith  and 
repentance  to  some  future  time.  There  is  no  intimation  in 
Scripture  that  the  Gospel-offer  will  be  made  to  men  in  the  life 
beyond  the  grave.  They  must  be  reconciled  to  God,  through 
the  mediation  of  Christ  in  this  life,  in  order  to  be  saved.  “  Now 
is  the  accepted  time;  behold  now  is  the  day  of  salvation.  § 
1  “  To-day,  if  ye  will  hear  His  voice,  harden  not  your  hearts.”  II 
There  will  be  no  escape  for  those  who,  in  the  present  dispen¬ 
sation,  neglect  so  great  salvation  as  is  offered  in  Christ.  If 


*  2  Cor.  v.  10.  t  Matt.  xxv.  31-46. 

t  John  iii.  36;  v.  29;  Luke  xiii.  24-28;  xvi.  26;  Rom.  ii.  6—1 1 ;  2  Thess.  i. 
7-10. 

§2  Cor.  vi.  2.  |  Heb.  iv.  7.  *  Heb.  ii.  3. 


* 


The  intense  zeal  of  the  apostles  and  early  Christians  in  urg¬ 
ing  the  Gospel  on  people  for  their  salvation  leaves  no  room 
for  doubt  that  they  believed  the  eternal  welfare  of  man  to  be 
dependent  on  the  reception  of  Christ  here  and  now.*  Oppor¬ 
tunity,  in  their  view,  ended  with  the  present  life.  The  Bible 
makes  no  mention  whatever  of  an  offer  of  the  Gospel,  of  a  pro¬ 
cess  of  redemption,  in  the  world  beyond  the  grave.  Between 
Dives  and  Lazarus,  between  the  wicked  and  the  righteous, 
there  is  an  impassable  gulf  fixed  immediately  after  death.  + 
“  The  wicked  is  driven  away  in  his  wickedness,”  and  so,  sup¬ 
plying  the  ellipsis,  has  no  hope  in  his  death,  “  but  the  righteous 
hath  hope  in  his  death.”  %  “  When  a  wicked  man  dieth,  his 

expectation  shall  perish;  and  the  hope  of  unjust  men  per- 
isheth.”  §  “  It  is  appointed  unto  men  once  to  die,  but  after 

this  the  judgment.”  ||  Destiny  is  then  irrevocably  fixed,  and 
process  of  Redemption  is  stayed. 

When  Jesus  said  to  the  Jews  that,  owing  to  their  rejection  of 
Him,  they  should  die  in  their  sins, IT  He  necessarily  implied  that 
His  people  would  not  die  in  their  sins.  They  practically  enjoy 
the  full  blessing  of  the  great  truth  that  “The  Lamb  of  God 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world.”  **  He  has  borne  their  sins 
away.  And  the  redeeming  work  of  Christ  is  so  absolutely  per¬ 
fect  that  no  further  satisfaction  for  sin  need  ever  be  made.  On 
the  ground  of  His  sacrifice  the  Christian  is  here  already  com¬ 
pletely  justified,  so  that  he  need  be  in  no  terror  of  meeting  God 
at  any  time  in  judgment,  since  it  is  not  himself,  but  Christ, 
who  answers  for  him.  In  his  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  of  God 
he  has  had  planted  in  his  higher  nature  the  germ  of  a  godly 
life,  which  puts  that  nature  in  direct  opposition  to  sin,  and 
which,  through  progressive  sanctification  in  this  life,  acquires 
increasing  intensity.  The  old  man  of  corruption  is  put  off. 
The  new  man  is  put  on,  “  which  after  God  is  created  in  right¬ 
eousness  and  true  holiness.”  IT  “  He  is  a  new  creature;  old 


*  Acts  xx.  26,  27.  f  Luke  xvi.  26.  %  Prov.  xiv.  32. 

§  Prov.  xi.  7.  1  Heb.  ix.  27.  IT  John  viii.  24. 

**  John  i.  29.  ff  Eph.  iv.  22.  24. 


things  are  passed  away;  behold,  all  things  are  become  new. 
The  soul  is  vivified  and  sin  is  mortified.  He  now  works  out  his 
salvation;  “  For  it  is  God  who  works  in  him  both  to  will  «.nd 
to  do  his  good  pleasure. ”+  He  has  indeed  been  born  Oi  God  , 
and,  although  sinning  often  through  weakness,  he  has  so  in 
purpose  renounced  sin  forever,  that  in  truth  lie  canno*.  sin, 
because  he  is  born  of  God.”!jl 

When,  therefore,  dissolution  takes  place  between  the  .lOa.  enu 
body  in  death,  it  involves,  after  all,  not  a  very  startling  trans¬ 
formation  for  the  Spirit  to  complete  the  work  which  He  has 
already  well  begun  and  carried  forward  in  the  soul,  anu  trans¬ 
late  the  saint  then  to  be  like  Christ,  perfect  in  holiness.  It  is 
not  maintained  that  sin  has  its  seat  merely  in  the  physical  na¬ 
ture,  and  that  therefore  it  is  destroyed  with  the  body  at  death, 
but  that  the  Spirit  of  God  then  completely  eliminates  sin  irom 
the  soul  of  the  Christian,  and  sets  his  longing  spirit  free. 

The  great  wonder  in  the  work  of  redeeming  man  from  sin,  is 
his  regeneration,  his  new  birth  from  above  ;  and  whenever  one 
has  been  thus  born  again  by  the  Holy  Spirit  it  involves  a  change 
no  more  marvelous  for  that  soul  to  be  at  any  time  theieaiter 
made  perfect  in  holiness,  than  was  seen  in  the  man  among  the 
tombs,  whom  Christ  made  right  instantly,  both  mentally  and 
morally,  or  than  occurred  in  Mary  Magdalen,  out  of  whom  the 
Lord  cast  seven  devils  by  the  power  of  His  word. 

Furthermore,  the  Scripture  teaches  that  sanctification  is  a 
work  which  the  Holy  Spirit  carries  on  in  the  disciples  of  Cnnst 
through  the  ministration  of  God’s  word  in  this  life.  He  does 
in  the  first  instance  beget  them  “  with  the  word  of  truth, ”§  as 
illustrated  in  the  conversion  of  Lydia. ||  Then,  “being  born 
again,  not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible,  by  the  word 
of  God, which  liveth  and  abideth  forever, ”1F  the  Spirit  conducts 
the  work  of  sanctification  by  means  of  the  purifying  power  of 


i  Peter  ii.  2. 


*  2  Cor.  v.  17. 
f  Phil.  ii.  13. 

%  1  John  iii.  9. 


§  James  i.  18. 

||  Acts  xvi.  14. 


T33 


the  same  word  of  God.  They  grow  by  the  use  of  “  the  sincere 
milk  of  the  word.”*  Christ  makes  this  prayer  for  His  people: 
“  Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth;  thy  word  is  truth. ”t  In 
this  way  He  sanctifies  and  cleanses  His  Church  “  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  wordP%  And  still  more  explicitly  we 
are  told  that  “  All  Scripture  ...  is  profitable  for  doctrine, 
for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  righteousness: 
That  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect ,  thoroughly  furnished  unto 
all  good  works.”§  And  since  the  Scripture  gives  no  intimation 
that  the  ministry  of  the  word  will  continue  in  the  next  world, 
the  work  of  sanctification  is  limited  by  it  to  this  world. 

But,  again,  we  learn  from  Scripture  that  sanctification  is  a 
part  of  the  redemption  of  Christ,  of  which  His  people  are  made 
partakers  in  this  earthly  life,  and  which  results  in  them  now  in 
increasing  holiness  and  good  works.  Jesus  Christ  is,  in  this 
life,  made  of  God  to  His  people,  “  wisdom  and  righteousness, 
and  sanctification  and  redemption. ”||  “  Being  made  free  from 

sin,  and  become  servants  of  God,  they  have  their  fruit  unto 
holiness,  and  the  end  everlasting  life.’’1!!  Abiding  in  Christ,  they 
“bring  forth  much  fruit,”  and  “are  clean  through  the  word  which 
He  hath  spoken  to  them. ”**  “  Christ  gave  Himself  for  us,  that 
He  might  redeem  us  from  all  iniquity,  and  purify  unto  Himself 
a  peculiar  people,  zealous  of  good  works. ”tt  “  We  are  the  work¬ 
manship  of  God,  created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which 
God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in  them.  Jj 
Hence  it  is  their  daily  duty  now  to  cleanse  themselves  “  from  all 
filthiness  of  the  flesh  and  spirit,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear 
of  God.”§§  They  are  to  “  walk  worthy  of  the  Lord  unto  all 
pleasing,  being  fruitful  in  every  good  work,  and  increasing  in 


*  i  Pet.  ii.  i. 
f  John  xvii.  7. 

J  Eph.  v.  26. 

2  Tim.  iii.  16,  17. 


|  1  Cor.  i.  30. 

Rom.  vi.  22. 
**  John  xv.  3,  5. 


Titus  ii.  14. 
Eph.  ii.  10. 
§§  2  Cor.  vii.  1. 


r34 


the  knowledge  Oi  God.”* * * §  And  the  Saviour  makes  this  appeal 
to  them  :  “Let  your  light  so  shine  before  men,  that  they  may 
see  your  good  works,  and  glorify  your  Father  which  is  in 
heaven. ”f 

And  that  the  sanctification  by  which  Christians  are  to  be 
prepared  for  the  coming  of  the  Lord  is  to  take  place  in  the 
bodily  life  on  earth  is  still  more  evident  from  these  words  of 
Paul  to  the  Thessalonians  :  “Abstain  from  all  appearance  of 
evil.  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly;  and  I 
pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved 
blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.”  J  “And 
the  Lord  make  you  to  increase  and  abound  in  love  one  toward 
another,  and  toward  all  men,  even  as  we  do  toward  you  :  to 
the  end  that  He  may  stablish  your  hearts  unblamable  in  holi¬ 
ness  before  God,  even  our  Father,  at  the  coming  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  with  all  His  saints.”  §  Here  the  apostle  teaches 
that  the  sanctification  of  believers  is  to  reach  its  completion 
at  any  moment  in  their  lifetime  when  the  Lord  may  suddenly 
come  again.  Their  hearts  are  here  to  be  established  unblama¬ 
ble  in  holiness.  And  this  is  in  thorough  accord  with  the  New 
Testament  conception  of  the  Christian  life.  According  to  this, 
believers  are  “led  by  the  Spirit ”|| — “walk  in  the  Spirit”  IF — 
and,  crucifying  all  evil  affections,  they  become  possessed  of  the 
fruit  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  “Love,  joy,  peace,  long-suffering, 
gentleness,  goodness,  faith,  meekness,  temperance.”  **  And 
for  this  reason  they  “are  a  chosen  generation,  a  royal  priest* 
hood,  a  holy  nation,  a  peculiar  people;  that  they  should  show 
forth  the  praises  of  Him  who  hath  called  them  out  of  darkness 
into  His  marvelous  light. ”ff 


*  Phil.  i.  io. 

f  Matt.  v.  16. 

X  i  Thess.  v.  22,  23. 

§  1  Thess.  iii.  12,  13. 
||  Gal.  v.  18. 

Gal.  v.  16. 

**  Gal.  v.  22,  23. 
ft  1  Pet.  2,  9. 


*35 


Her e,  then,  we  see  that,  according  to  the  Scripture,  sancti¬ 
fication  is  a  work  which  the  Holy  Spirit  carries  on  in  the  souls 
of  believers  by  means  of  the  Word  of  God  in  this  life,  and 
reaches  such  blessed  results  by  it  as  to  fit  them  to  meet  their 
Lord  at  any  time. 

Keeping  this  truth  in  mind,  we  will  be  better  able  to  under¬ 
stand  what  the  Scripture  says  of  the  state  of  believers  in  the 
next  world  immediately  after  their  death.  It  makes  several 
statements  which,  in  their  combined  testimony,  conclusively 
show  that  the  disciples  of  Christ  enter  the  spirit-world  free 
from  sin  and  from  all  its  effects. 

i.  They  go  immediately  to  heaven.  The  unclothing  of 
believers  in  death  is  followed  immediately  by  the  being 
clothed  upon  with  their  house  which  is  from  heaven,  that 
“  building  of  God,  not  made  with  hands,  eternal  in  the  heav¬ 
ens."  When  passing  through  that  change,  they  depart  for¬ 
ever  from  the  groaning  to  which  we  are  subject  in  this  life, 
owing  to  sin,  trial  and  frailty,  and  enter  at  once  upon  that 
blessed  state  of  being  wherein  mortality  is  swallowed  up  of 
life.* * * §  And  since  sin  is  largely  the  cause  of  human  mortality, 
when  the  mortal  puts  on  immortality  the  last  vestige  of  sin 
must  be  gone.  Believers  who  have  departed  this  life  are  in¬ 
heritors  of  the  promises  in  yonder  world, t  and  since  freedom 
from  sin  is  one  of  the  promises,  they  must  have  inherited  it 
there. 

The  A  postle  further  states,  that  when  believers  go  to  be  ab¬ 
sent  from  the  body,  it  is  to  be  present  with  the  Lord.:]:  But 
Christ  is  in  heaven,  where  nothing  unclean  shall  enter.  § 
It  cannot  be,  therefore,  that  His  people  should  go  to  be  pres¬ 
ent  with  Him  there  in  a  nature  which  is  still  defiled  by  sin.  In 
that  holy  heaven  believers  shall  belike  Him,  for  they  shall  see 
Him  as  He  is.||  The  perfecting  of  that  holiness,  without  which 

*  2  Cor.  5,  1-4. 

f  Heb.  6,  12. 

%  2  Cor.  5,  6-8. 

§  Rev.  21,  27. 

|  1  John  3,  2. 


1 36 


no  man  shall  see  the  Lord  *  takes  place  at  death.  Beyond  that 
the  pi  ocess  of  redemption  does  not  extend.  When  the  saint 
departs  from  the  body,  and  goes  to  be  present  with  the  Lord, 
he  enters  on  the  process  of  glorification. 

2.  Quite  in  harmony  with  this ,  the  souls  of  believers  immedi¬ 
ately  after  death  are  represented  in  Scripture  as  spotlessly  pure . 
Sin  has  been  entirely  suppressed,  its  defilement  has  been 
eliminated,  and  the  work  of  sanctification  has  terminated  in 
complete  holiness.  The  great  multitude  who  stand  before  the 
throne,  and  before  the  Lamb,  are  “clothed  with  white  robes P  + 
It  is  conceded  that  the  figurative  representations  of  the  Apoc¬ 
alypse  are  not  to  be  unduly  pressed  in  proof  of  doctrinal  state¬ 
ments.  But  the  imagery  of  the  book  of  Revelation,  no  less 
than  its  positive  declarations,  gives  us  the  truth  of  God  for 
our  learning ;  and,  while  some  things  are  veiled  in  mystery, 
there  are  others  whose  meaning  is  too  obvious  to  be  misunder¬ 
stood.  And  the  figurative  presentation,  which  we  find  in  the 
fifth,  sixth  and  seventh  chapters  of  Revelation,  of  the  condi¬ 
tion  ot  the  souls  of  believers  in  their  state  between  death  and 
the  general  resurrection,  accords  precisely  with  the  statements 
made  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  second  Corinthians,  which  we  have 
just  been  considering.  They  are  there,  in  the  sanctity  of  the 
heavenly  home,  clothed  upon.  Having  departed  from  the  body, 
they  are  there  with  Christ,  whom  only  the  holy  shall  see.  All 
the  members  of  that  great  multitude  are  victors,  having  palms 
in  their  hands,  and  singing  hymns  of  praise  to  Almighty  God 
and  to  the  Lamb  for  His  salvation,  which  has  done  its  com¬ 
plete  work  in  them. 

It  is  conceded  that  the  white  robes  are  the  symbol  of  right¬ 
eousness.  But  this  cannot  be  the  imputed  righteousness  of 
Christ  which  only  covers  the  sins  of  the  believers,  while  in  their 
case  sin  has  been  eradicated,  the  very  thing  which  sanctifica¬ 
tion  accomplishes.  The  white  robes  were  once  sin-stained, 
but  the  wearers  of  them  have  washed  them,  “  and  made  them 

*  Heb.  12,  14. 

f  Rev.  7,  9. 


!37 


white  in  the  blood  of  the  Lamb.”* * * §  Christ’s  robe  of  righteous¬ 
ness,  which  mantles  the  believer  in  justification,  is  not  in  need 
of  being  washed  and  made  white.  “  The  fine  linen,  clean  and 
■white ,”  in  which  believers  are  attired  in  the  world  beyond  the 
.grave,  “is  the  righteousness  of  the  saints  f  attained  by  means 
of  sanctification  here.  There  they  do  no  longer  appear  as  defiled 
by  sin,  or  as  struggling  with  it.  They  give  no  sign  of  an  “  evil 
temper,”  or  of  sin  still  remaining  in  the  higher  nature.  The 
last  vestige  of  sin  has  been  washed  out  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb.  They  are  there  in  that  “glorious  Church”  which  has 
been  “  sanctified,  cleansed  and  presented  to  Christ,  not  hav¬ 
ing  spot  or  wrinkle,  or  any  such  thing,  but  being  holy  and 
without  blemish. ”f 

This  is  the  “  great  gain,”  “  the  crown  of  righteousness,” 
which  *Paul  declared  was  ready  for  him  at  his  exit  from  this 
life..! 

3.  Again ,  the  souls  of  believers  do  at  their  death  immediately 
■  enter  on  a  state  of  unmingled  blessedness .  We  are  assured  by 
a  voice  from  heaven,  confirmed  in  a  most  solemn  manner  by 
the  testimony  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  those  who  die  in  the 
Lord  enter  at  once,  after  death,  on  a  life  of  unalloyed  bliss  and 
of  perfect  rest.  “  Blessed  are  the  dead  which  die  in  the  Lord 
from  henceforth  :  Yea,  saith  the  Spirit,  that  they  may  rest  from 
their  labors;  and  their  works  do  follow  them.”§  There  is  no 
mystery  about  this.  The  meaning  is  perfectly  clear;  and  the 
declaration  comes  to  us  with  all  the  authority  of  an  immediate 
oracle  from  heaven,  and  claims  our  unquestioning  faith.  And 
since  the  blessing  of  dying  in  the  Lord  is  promised  to  every 
Christian,  this  statement  of  the  Word  of  God  is  descriptive  of 
the  condition  of  all  the  people  of  Christ  immediately  after  their 
death.  They  are  completely  blessed,  and  have  entered  upon 
the  perfect  rest  of  God.  Their  toil  and  conflict  have  been  ac¬ 
complished.  They  rest  from  their  labors,  not  only  from  those 

*  Rev.  7  :  14 

f  Eph.  5  :  27. 

\  2  Tim.  4  :  8. 

§  Rev.  14  :  13. 


i38 


pertaining  to  the  hard  service  of  Christ  against  the  opposition 
and  persecution  of  an  evil  world,  but  also  from  the  more  se¬ 
vere  and  more  weary  struggle  of  eliminating  sin  from  their  na¬ 
tures  by  means  of  confession,  humiliation,  mortification  and 
repentance. 

And  this  also  agrees  with  other  statements  of  Holy  Scrip- 
tuie.  1  he  Christian  life  in  this  W'orld  is  represented  every¬ 
where  on  its  pages  as  a  struggle,  a  conflict,  a  warfare  with 
both  internal  and  external  evils.  But  the  Divine  Word  as¬ 
sures  us,  that  the  grace  of  life  so  works  in  believers,  renewing 
the  inward  man  day  by  day,  that  the  conflict  shall  not  only  be 
of  biief  duration,  but  be  also  made  the  means  of  working  out 
for  them  in  the  near  future  a  transcend ently  more  glorious 
life*  “  For  our  light  affliction,  which  is  but  for  a  moment ,  work- 
eth  out  for  us  a  far  more  exceeding  and  eternal  weight  of 
gloi}’ >  while  we  look  not  at  the  things  which  are  seen,  but  at 
the  things  which  are  not  seen  ;  for  the  things  which  are  seen 
tire  tempoial,  but  the  things  which  are  not  seen  are  eternal. ’’fi 

If  the  saint  during  the  long  period  of  the  middle  state  must 
still  be  occupied  with  fighting  against  indwelling  sin,  then  his 
affliction  could  not  be  described  as  lasting  but  for  a  moment, 
nor  could  it  be  said  of  him  that  he  had  ceased  from  his  labors 
after  that  he  had  died  in  the  Lord,  and  that  he  had  entered  upon 
the  things  that  are  eternal,  and  the  far  more  exceeding  and  eter¬ 
nal  weight  of  glory. 

The  Scripture,  therefore,  flatly  contradicts  the  hurtful  error 
of  Dr.  Briggs,  according  to  which  he  affirms,  of  the  saints  in 
their  lire  alter  death:  “  That  the  evil  which  lingers  in  the  higher 
moral  nature  of  believers  will  be  suppressed  and  modified  with 
an  energy  of  repentance,  humiliation,  confession  and  determina¬ 
tion  that  will  be  more  powerful  than  ever  before.” 

4.  Again ,  the  Scripture  positively  affirms  that  believers  in 
the  life  after  death  have  attained  to  perfection  of  character . 
The  spirits  of  the  just  men,  mentioned  in  Hebrews  xii.  23  as 


*  2  Cor.  4  :  12-16. 
t  2  Cor.  4  :  17-18. 


I39 


inhabiting  the  middle  state,  had  been  already  made  perfect,  or, 
as  the  word  more  strictly  means,  had  reached  the  full  accom¬ 
plishments  of  end  ( teteleiomenon ),  which  had  been  at  stake  in 
their  earthly  course.  In  their  case  redemption  from  sin  has 
been  completed  through  “Jesus  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Cov¬ 
enant,  and  the  Blood  of  Sprinkling,  which  speaketh  better 
things  than  that  of  Abel.”  They  are  there  in  the  presence  of 
God,  the  Judge  of  all,  enjoying  His  rest  free  from  all  error  and 
sin. 

5.  It  is  also  expressly  stated  in  the  Word  of  God,  that  in  the 
case  of  many  the  change  from  partial  sanctification  to  perfect 
holiness  will  be  i?istantaneons .  Those  millions  of  Christians  who 
shall  be  on  the  earth  at  the  last  day,  when  the  Lord  shall  come 
to  summon  the  dead  from  their  graves  and  call  the  nations 
to  judgment,  many  of  whom  may  as  yet  have  made  but  small 
progress  in  grace,  shall  be  changed  “in  a  moment,  in  the 
twinkling  of  an  eye,”  when  the  voice  of  fhe  archangel  and  the 
trump  of  God  shall  sound.  And  this  instant  change  shall  take 
place  in  body,  soul  and  spirit  from  the  corruptible  to  the  in¬ 
corruptible,  from  the  mortal  to  the  immortal.  They  will  then 
be  at  once  “caught  up”  together  with  resurrected  saints  “in 
the  clouds  to  meet  the  Lord  in  the  air,”  and  to  evermore  be 
with  the  Lord.  * 

This  shows  it  not  only  to  be  possible,  but  makes  it  highly 
probable,  that  there  will  be  an  immediate  change  from  the 
present  condition  of  sin  to  perfect  holiness  on  the  part  of  be¬ 
lievers,  when  through  death  they  enter  the  better  world,  for 
they  then  also  go  to  the  presence  of  the  Lord. 

If  it  will  be  possible  in  the  one  case  to  change  from  a  sinful 
nature  to  perfect  holiness  in  the  moment  of  passing  from  earth 
to  heaven,  it  cannot  be  considered  impossible  now  for  the  saint 
to  undergo  the  same  change  at  death  for  the  reason  that  it  is 
contrary  to  some  principle  of  psychology  and  ethics. 

The  doctrine  of  our  Standards  is  based  on  this  Scripture  truth 
and  is  amply  supported  by  it.  It  is  impossible  to  use  words 


*  1  Cor.  xv.  51,  52;  1  Thess.  iv.  16,  17. 


4 


140 


which  could  more  plainly  and  explicitly  convey  the  idea  that 
Christ’s  people  attain  to  perfect  sanctification  at  death.  The 
Confession  states:  “The  bodies  of  men,  after  death,  return  to 
dust,  and  see  corruption,  but  their  souls  (which  can  neither  die 
nor  sleep),  having  an  immortal  subsistence,  immediately  return 
to  God  who  gave  them.  The  souls  of  the  righteous,  being  then 
made  perfect  in  holiness,  are  received  into  the  highest  heavens, 
where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory,  waiting 
for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies.”* 

The  plea  of  Dr.  Briggs  that  the  words,  “  after  death  f  do  not 
refer  to  the  moment  immediately  after  death,  but  were  intended 
by  the  framers  of  the  Confession  to  extend  over  the  long  per¬ 
iod  of  the  middle  state,  is  refuted  by  the  fact,  that  they  qualify 
both  the  returning  of  the  body  to  dust  and  the  recovering  of 
the  believer’s  soul  to  the  glory  of  heaven.  As  the  body  returns 
at  once  to  dust  “after  death,”  so  a  right  construction  of  the 
language  necessitates  us  to  make  it  mean  nothing  else  than 
that  the  holy  soul  attains,  after  death,  to  perfect  holiness  at 
once  in  the  highest  heaven.  This  view  is  confirmed  by  the 
further  fact  that  the  Confession  teaches  that  departed  saints 
have  attained  perfect  holiness  and  enjoy  communion  with  God 
in  the  highest  heaven,  while  yet  their  bodies  are  slumbering  in 
the  dust.  It  is  therefore  in  that  period  which  extends  from 
death  to  the  general  resurrection. 

But  suppose  we  grant,  for  argument’s  sake,  that  the  state¬ 
ments  of  the  Confession  and  the  Larger  Catechism  are  of  such 
latitude  as  to  admit  of  a  harmonious  adjustment  of  the  view  of 
Dr.  Briggs  with  them.  We  do  not  think  this  possible,  but,  if  it 
were,  then  there  is  still  the  strong,  clear  statement  of  the 
Shorter  Catechism:  “  The  souls  of  believers  are  at  their  death 
made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  do  immediately  pass  into  glory, 
and  their  bodies  being  still  united  to  Christ,  do  rest  in  their 
graves  till  the  Resurrection. ”t 

When  a  company  of  intelligent  men,  who  are  known  to  use 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chapter  32,  section  1. 
f  Shorter  Catechism.  A.  37. 


# 


language  with  the  most  painstaking  exactness,  make  three 
statements  on  the  same  subject,  two  of  which  might  possibly 
bear  another  meaning  than  that  which  appears  most  evident  on 
the  face  of  them,  but  the  third  cannot  possibly  be  made  to  mean 
anything  else  than  that  which  is  most  evident  in  the  other  two, 
then  these  two  must,  in  all  fairness,  be  interpreted  to  mean  only 
that  which  is  unmistakably  affirmed  in  the  third. 

And  that  this  is  what  they  intended  to  express  is  made  clear 
from  still  another  consideration.  It  is  now  well  known  that 
at  the  time  when  the  Confession  was  framed,  the  use  of  the 
word  “  being  ”  in  connection  with  a  perfect  participle  did  not 
indicate  an  act  as- still  in  progress.  “ Being  then  made  per¬ 
fect  ”  meant  at  that  time  precisely  what  we  now  express  by 
the  phrase,  having  been  made  perfect.  In  Pepyss  Diary,  1667, 
some  twenty  years  after  the  drafting  of  our  Confession,  there 
occurs  this  expression,  which  illustrates  this  point  :  Thence 

Creed  and  I  by  water  up  to  Fox  Hall,  and  over  against  it 
stopped,  thinking  to  see  some  cock-fighting  ;  but  it  was,  just 
being  done ,  and  therefore  back  again  to  Spring  Garden.”  " 

It  was  not  until  the  latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century 
that  the  combination  of  a  perfect  participle  with  being  was  used 
to  express  the  idea  that  a  certain  act  was  progressing  at  some 
past  time.  + 

Neither  in  the  “Rudiments  of  English  Grammar,”  by  Dr. 
Priestly,  1772,  nor  in  an  enlarged  edition  of  the  same  work  in 
1785,  was  such  an  expression  noticed.  As  late  as  the  early  part 
of  the  present  century,  Archbishop  Whately  calls  it  “ uncouth 
English $  It  is,  therefore,  absolutely  certain  that,  when  the 
Westminster  divines  stated  in  the  Confession:  “  The  souls  of 
the  righteous  being  then  made  perfect  in  holiness ,  they  did  not 
mean  by  that  a  process  of  sanctification  which  was  to  extend 
over  the  immense  period  of  the  middle  state,  as  Dr.  Iuiggs 
affirms,  but  that  the  souls  of  the  righteous  had  at  their  death 


*  Pepys’s  Diary,  Mynor  Bright’s  Edition,  p.  357- 
f  English  Adjectives  in  able,  by  F.  Hall,  p.  28. 

%  Modern  English,  by  F.  Hall,  p.  337. 


been  made  perfect  in  holiness.  For  they  certainly  used  the 
purest  English  of  their  day. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  this  view  of  the  progressive 

sanctification  of  believers  in  the  middle  state,  which  Dr.  Briggs 

inculcates,  contradicts  flatly  the  plain  teaching,  both  of  the 

scripture  and  the  Standards  of  our  Church,  according  to  which 

1  'e  pe°plf.  of  God  become  perfectly  holy  on  their  entrance 
upon  the  life  beyond  the  grave. 

T  hat  this  doctrine  of  Professor  Briggs  affects  our  faith  vitally 
evide-nt  from  several  considerations. 

It  is  urged  on  the  ground  of  a  natural  principle  of  psychology 

,  ethlcs’  rather  than  on  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture 
and  so  tends  to  throw  discredit  on  the  Scripture  as  the  only 
iule  of  faith  and  practice.  7 

There  is  also  so  thin  a  wall  or  partition  between  this  doc¬ 
trine  of  progressive  sanctification  in  the  middle  state  and  the 
Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  that  the  former  will 
very  readily  slide  into  the  latter. 


,  .f,  W1”  also  °Pen  the  door  to  ^  wider  divergencies  from  the 
.auh  Once  admit  the  position  that  the  processes  of  redemp¬ 
tion  from  sin  are  continued  in  the  life  after  death,  and  it  will 
linP°sslb|e  to  set  bounds  to  them.  I  have  shown  from 
statements  of  his  own  writings,  that  Dr.  Briggs  entertains  the 
largest  hopes  m  respect  to  the  possibilities  of  redemption  in 
ic  mi  die  state.  Indeed,  his  remark  about  death  being  a 
terror  to  the  best  of  men,  if  the  issues  of  life  are  then  to  be 
considered  final,  inevitably  suggests  the  thought  of  another 
chance  .or  those  who  die  impenitent  to  avail  themselves  of  the 
benefits  of  redemption  in  the  next  world. 

In  commending,  as  “  excellent  thoughts,"  this  statement  of 

,r'  D°5ner;  “  to  those  who  die  unbelieving  their  impiety  and 
alienation  from  God  is  unveiled,  and  if,  instead  of  repenting  and 

converted,  *  *  *  *  they  prefer  to  continue  in  evil  then 

r  ?f°nI1of.their  f1'1  becomes  “ore  spiritual,  more  demonia- 
a  .  r.  riggs  almost  commits  himself  to  the  position  that  the 
entire  work  of  redemption,  from  beginning  to  end,  may  take 
p  ace  in  the  middle  state— regeneration,  repentance,  justifica- 


143 


tion,  as  well  as  sanctification.  For  those  thoughts  could  not 
be  “  excellent  ”  unless  they  were  true,  and  Dr.  Briggs  could  not 
speak  of  them  as  “ excellent  ”  unless  he  regarded  them  to  be 
true.  They  are  dangerous  thoughts  if  false,  as  we  believe. 

For  these  reasons  this  court  should  condemn  Dr.  Briggs’s 
doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death. 


It  has  thus  been  demonstrated  that  Dr.  Briggs  contradicts  in 
his  teachings  both  the  Holy  Scripture  and  our  Standards  in  re¬ 
spect  to  the  various  points  specified  under  the  charges  pre¬ 
ferred  against  him. 

We  have  also  shown  that  these  utterances  of  his  are  on  es¬ 
sential  points  of  the  faith,  not  only  as  understood  by  Presby¬ 
terians,  but  as  held  by  all  evangelical  Christians. 

Dr.  Briggs  opens  up  a  field  for  the  operation  of  the  process¬ 
es  of  redemption,  and  suggests  possibilities  in  respect  to  them 
in  the  future  life,  which  are  entirely  out  of  harmony  with  the 
evangelical  system  of  doctrine,  and  which  cannot  fail  to  take 
much  of  the  pith  and  point  out  of  evangelical  preaching. 

In  placing  the  Reason  and  the  Church  side  by  side  with  Holy 
Scripture,  as  fountains  of  Divine  authority  which  can  savingly 
enlighten  men,  he  completely  undermines  the  confessional 
doctrine  of  the  sole  supremacy  of  the  Scripture  as  a  fountain 
of  Divine  authority  in  matters  of  salvation. 

He  presents  a  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture  which  com¬ 
pletely  undermines  its  infallible  authority  as  the  only  rule  of 
faith  and  conduct.  With  an  extensive  field  of  circumstantials 
pervaded  by  errors  of  which  no  one  knows  the  number,  and 
in  which  it  is  impossible  to  draw  the  dividing  line  between 
what  is  essential  and  non-essential,  and  with  a  text  that  is 
merely  human,  in  which  the  exact  residuum  of  divine  truth 
cannot  be  determined,  we  have  a  Bible  on  which  no  one  can 
rest  with  certainty  or  build  with  joyous  confidence.  Such  a 
doctrine  of  Scripture,  if  accepted,  would  be  destructive  of  our 
entire  system  of  doctrine.  We  have  built  that  system  on  the 
plain  statements  of  Scripture,  or  on  the  necessary  inferences 


144 


therefrom,  but,  according  to  the  higher  criticism,  many  state¬ 
ments  of  Scripture  must  be  taken  with  considerable  allowance, 
and  may  be  positively  false.  We  may  therefore  just  as  well 
cease  the  work  of  collecting  proof  texts  for  our  Standards, 
since  they  can  prove  nothing  decisively  nor  finally. 

In  fact,  if  this  view  of  the  Scripture  were  allowed,  it  would 
necessitate  a  complete  change  in  our  matters  of  belief  as  well 
as  in  the  manner  of  presenting  them. 

The  power  which  the  Bible  has  exerted,  and  which  it  still 
exerts,  is  due  largely  to  the  fact  that  men  have  regarded  its 
words  and  expressions  as  those  of  God  Himself.  They  have 
heard  God  speaking  to  them  alike  in  its  history  and  its  poetry, 
in  its  admonitions  and  promises  with  the  voice  of  divine 
authority.  This  has  made  it  the  inspiration  and  life  to  the 
men  and  women  of  all  the  centuries,  speaking  of  pardon  and 
peace  to  the  believing  and  penitent,  giving  comfort  to  the  sor¬ 
rowing,  awakening  dead  consciences,  and  evermore  urging 
men  to  continue  in  the  upward  way  to  heaven.  It  is  a  work 
which  will  abide  forever. 

But  if,  now,  we  cannot  trust  the  words  of  such  God-inspired 
men  as  Moses,  David,  Isaiah,  Paul,  Peter — yes,  and  as  Christ, 
the  incarnate  Word  Himself,  and  must  learn  from  these  modern 
apostles  of  the  higher  criticism  bow  much  of  the  Scripture  we 
can  receive  as  the  veritable  truth  of  God,  we  shall  lose  that 
living  divine  power  by  means  of  whi:h  the  Bible  has  been  so 
rich  a  blessing  to  the  world  of  mankind,  and  all  the  more  so 
since  these  apostles  are  unable  to  tell  us  how  much  of  the  con¬ 
tents  of  the  Bible  is  God’s  truth,  and  how  much  not.  And  the 
question  before  this  Presbytery  to-day,  stripped  of  all  side  is¬ 
sues,  is  whether  you  will  substitute  the  rationalistic  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  Bible  for  the  evangelical  one,  whether  or  not  you 
will  stand  firmly  by  that  unqualified  evangelical  Protestantism 
which  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  so  honorably  maintained 
throughout  its,  entire  history  ? 

Whatever  may  be  the  decision  reached  by  the  Presbytery  in 
this  case,  it  will  be  judged  by  the  Church  and  the  world,  not 
so  much  as  an  approval  or  condemnation  of  an  individual,  but 


as  an  indication  of  a  determination  of  the  Presbytery  to  main¬ 
tain,  or  of  a  readiness  to  change,  the  present  evangelical  char¬ 
acter  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  History  may  repeat  itself. 
It  is  possible  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America,  after  the  manner  of  some  of  the  Reforma¬ 
tion  Churches  of  Europe,  may  be  started  on  its  way  toward  a 
lifeless  formalism. 

It  is  no  secret  that  large  portions  of  the  Reformed  Churches 
of  Switzerland,  France,  Germany  and  Holland,  under  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  this  rationalistic  method  of  treating  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures,  have  become  as  dead  and  fruitless  as  the  desert  of 
Sahara.  In  the  Church  in  Holland,  life  has  become  so  com¬ 
pletely  extinct  that  all  hopes  of  a  resurrection  have  been 
abandoned,  and  the  attempt  is  now  making  to  start  afresh  an 
evangelical  Church  on  a  new  and  independent  basis.  This  is 
what  a  rationalistic  way  of  treating  the  Bible,  theology  and 
religion  has  gradually  accomplished  over  there.  It  will  do 
the  same  thing  here,  if  allowed  to  have  its  way — it  may  be 
sooner  than  any  one  here  can  surmise.  And  the  opportu¬ 
nity  is  afforded  to  this  Presbytery  to  save  our  Church  from  so 
great  an  evil,  in  resolutely  crushing  these  errors,  and  in  firmly 
maintaining  the  faith  committed  to  us.  This  does  not  in  the 
least  involve  the  blocking  of  the  wheels  of  progress.  Presby¬ 
terians,  like  other  evangelical  Christians,  hold  their  faith  in¬ 
telligently.  They  are  able  to  give  a  reason  for  the  hope  that 
is  in  them,  and  are,  moreover,  always  ready  to  welcome  any 
new  truth  properly  certified  to. 

Nor  is  there  any  intolerance  in  this.  It  cannot  be  considered 
an  undue  curtailment  of  any  one’s  liberty  to  insist  on  his  fidel¬ 
ity,  so  long  as  he  remains  in  the  compact,  to  sacred  agreements, 
the  terms  of  which  were  well  understood,  sincerely  offered  and 
voluntarily  assumed. 

If  Dr.  Briggs  is  burdened  with  new  truth  that  makes  the 
Church  with  which  he  is  connected  too  narrow  for  him,  the 
whole  world  is  open  to  him  and  ready  to  accord  him  the  fullest 
tolerance  for  the  promulgation  of  that  truth.  No  one  will  re¬ 
strain  his  liberty.  But,  as  I  have  already  said,  if,  in  view  of  all 


the  light  she  can  obtain,  the  Presbyterian  Church  feels  in  con¬ 
science  bound  to  continue  her  unbroken  testimony  for  a  truth¬ 
ful  Bible,  for  its  sole  supremacy  in  matters  of  faith  and 
life  and  for  the  doctrine  that  the  redemption  of  believers 
is  complete  at  death,  it  should  have  the  privilege  of  doing  this 
in  the  same  unrestrained  freedom.  The  Presbyterian  Church, 
in  its  almost  unanimous  expression  of  feeling,  is  as  likely  to 
voice  the  will  of  God  in  this  matter  as  Dr.  Briggs.  At  all 
events,  it  is  plain  that  Presbyterians  desire  to  keep  their  old 
faith  in  this  respect,  in  its  purity.  They  do  not  want  to  foster 
these  new  doctrines  of  Dr.  Briggs;  and  to  force  them  on  an 
unwilling  Church  is  as  unmanly  as  it  is  destructive  of  that  very 
spirit  of  liberty  in  the  name  of  which  the  attempt  is  made. 

It  is  possible  that  a  Church  may  be  ultra  conservative,  but 
jealous  regard  for  the  old  faith  is  a  good  thing,  and  is  especially 
to  be  commended  when  the  minimizing  of  great  truths  is  so 
much  in  fashion.  The  tendency  of  our  age  to  believe  as  litile 
as  possible ,  is  sapping  the  strength  of  faith  and  depriving  the 
Christian  life  of  its  vigor.  That  strength  and  that  life  are  nur¬ 
tured  by  an  unshaken  faith  in  the  great  truths  of  the  infallible 
Word  of  God  ;  and  since  our  people  deem  it  of  vital  importance 
to  hold  the  doctrines  involved  in  this  case  as  necessary  to  their 
strength  and  usefulness,  they  deserve  to  be  encouraged  and 
fortified  in  that  position  by  this  Presbytery. 

In  thus  standing  ‘firmly  by  these  doctrines  of  our  historic 
faith,  while  wronging  no  one,  but  exercising  charity  toward 
all,  we  shall  conserve  important  truth,  bring  peace  to  our 
troubled  Church,  command  the  respect  of  the  thoughtful  every¬ 
where,  and  commend  ourselves  to  the  blessing  of  the  great 
Head  of  the  Church. 


•v  ■  • 


v 


s* 


lilillSRiilli 

mmm 


